Nuclear power is expensive, according to some

[His Divine Shadow]

Found this article on another forum, sounds like retarded shit to my ears.

Snowmass, Colo., 20 June 2005-

Rocky Mountain Institute researchers today doused the hype about "nuclear revival" in an icy bath of real-world data. They documented that worldwide, the decentralized, low- or no-carbon sources of electricity-cogeneration and renewables, all claimed by nuclear advocates to be too small and too slow to help much with climate change- are already bigger than nuclear power and are quickly leaving it in the dust. "Nuclear advocates are desperately trying to create an illusion that their failed option is being revived," said RMI CEO and cofounder Amory Lovins, the lead author of the analysis, "so all its remaining costs and risks, which private investors have rejected, can be loaded onto taxpayers.

This bailout, now being debated in Washington, is claimed to be vital because nuclear power is the only power source big and fast enough to combat climate change. But industry and official data reveal that claim to be false. While nuclear power dies of an incurable attack of market forces, its derided smaller-scale competitors are already a bigger global power source and are growing very rapidly, while nuclear power continues to fade away."

The cover story in RMI's summer 2005 newsletter, published today, documents the global growth of two kinds of decentralized electricity generation: cogeneration (producing electricity and useful heat together) and renewable sources (wind, biomass power, geothermal, small hydro, and solar, but excluding big hydro dams-any over 10 megawatts). In 2004 alone, these smallscale, low- or no-carbon sources added 5.9 times as much net generating capacity and 2.9 times as much electricity production as nuclear power did. By the end of 2004, the decentralized competitors' global installed capacity totaled roughly 411 gigawatts-12 percent more than global nuclear plants' 366 gigawatts-and produced about 92 percent as much electricity. (The difference is because some kinds of renewable sources run fewer hours per year.)

Thus, the article notes, these so-called "minor" alternative sources-often claimed to be unimportant, uncompetitive, and far in the future-actually overtook nuclear's global capacity in 2003, rivaled its 2004 and will match its 2005 electricity output, and should exceed its 2010 output by 43 percent. Official and industry forecasts indicate that in 2010, they'll add 177 times as much capacity as dwindling nuclear power will-the ultimate test of energy technology in the free market. Not, of course, that the market is actually free: nuclear power is far more heavily subsidized (http://earthtrack.net/earthtrack/index. ... 7&catid=66) than its competitors. That makes their market victory even more remarkable. with manufacturers earning about ten times as much 2004 revenue selling renewable power equipment as nuclear plants- and the latter all selling to centrally planned power systems, not those disciplined by markets.

Due to a lack of global data, these comparisons don't even count competition from the demand side-more efficient use of electricity, wringing more and better work from each kilowatt-hour. Lovins says that's generally bigger, faster, and cheaper than any way to produce electricity. (He's widely considered one of the world's leading authorities on saving electricity, of which he led a uniquely detailed assessment in the 1980s and '90s. RMI earns most of its revenue by consulting for major companies on advanced energy efficiency.)

"So the big question about nuclear 'revival' isn't just who'd pay for such a turkey, but also.why bother?" Lovins asks. "Why keep on distorting markets and biasing choices to divert scarce resources from the winners to the loser-a far slower, costlier, harder, and riskier niche product-and paying a premium to incur its many problems? Nuclear advocates try to reverse the burden of proof by claiming it's the portfolio of non-nuclear alternatives that has an unacceptably greater risk of non-adoption, but actual market behavior suggests otherwise."

Lovins also debunks the notion that nuclear energy is the best investment against carbon dioxide emissions and global climate change. The goal, he says, should be to displace the most emissions soonest for each dollar invested. As the market is proving, both efficient use of electricity and decentralized production can be installed faster than nuclear plants, and thus can displace coalfired generation earlier. But the key difference isn't just speed; it's also cost. An alternative that delivers electricity at one-third the cost of a new nuclear plant, as many do, will buy three times as much climate solution per dollar as spending that same dollar on the nuclear plant. Conversely,because nuclear power is the costliest option, choosing it actually makes climate change worse than if the best buys were bought instead. Operating a nuclear plant emits essentially no carbon, but the same is also true of renewable sources and efficient use. Fossil-fueled cogeneration's emissions depend on its fuel (~60-70% worldwide uses low-carbon natural gas); generally it emits ~30-80% less carbon than the separate power stations and boilers it replaces (often fueled with coal, the highest-carbon fuel).

"I've always been, and am today, open-minded about the possibility that [nuclear energy] may have hidden merits," Lovins notes. "But based on the literature and on deep practical experience of electric efficiency and production in scores of countries, I see no evidence that nuclear power, using any technology, under any political system (let alone an attractive one), is or promises to become an economically, technically, or socially sound energy solution."

Anyone got any hard facts to disprove this? Just sounds like utter bullshit to me, but hard figures to disprove it?

[Darth Wong]

It's actually plausible. If there weren't a lot of nuclear power plants built during any given period (and there has been so much PR bullshit for the last 30 years that nuclear power plant construction has been virtually halted in most parts of the world), then it would not be difficult for things like cogeneration and small-scale projects like windmills to outpace new nuclear generation capacity. But that's a deceiving argument since it takes quite a while (years) to construct and commission a nuclear power plant, and you can't say that nuclear power plants don't have superior generating potential just because not a lot of them were built during any given period. Even if we started building nukes all over the place, it would be a while before we saw a big spike in nuclear generation.

[His Divine Shadow]

Well that bit about nuclear receieving more subsidies than renewables sounds like nonsense to me.

[aerius]

Someone is pulling numbers out of their ass. According to the International Electricity Information website, ~300 billion kWh of electricity were generated from renewable sources in 2003. In the same year, roughly 2500 billion kWh of electricity was generated by nuclear.

Roughly 2600 billion kWh was generated from ALL hydroelectric sources in 2003. So as far as I can tell, they took the number for all hydroelectric sources and all renewable sources and added them together, and then made up some bullshit about excluding all hydro damn making over 10MW.

[Darth Wong]

Someone is pulling numbers out of their ass. According to the International Electricity Information website, ~300 billion kWh of electricity were generated from renewable sources in 2003. In the same year, roughly 2500 billion kWh of electricity was generated by nuclear.

Roughly 2600 billion kWh was generated from ALL hydroelectric sources in 2003. So as far as I can tell, they took the number for all hydroelectric sources and all renewable sources and added them together, and then made up some bullshit about excluding all hydro damn making over 10MW.

I thought they meant new nuclear generation, not existing capacity.

[aerius]

I thought they meant new nuclear generation, not existing capacity.

They're mostly just hyping up how fast renewable generating capacity is being added, but they also go on to say it generates more power than nuclear.


From the article:

By the end of 2004, the decentralized competitors' global installed capacity totaled roughly 411 gigawatts-12 percent more than global nuclear plants' 366 gigawatts-and produced about 92 percent as much electricity. (The difference is because some kinds of renewable sources run fewer hours per year.)

Thus, the article notes, these so-called "minor" alternative sources-often claimed to be unimportant, uncompetitive, and far in the future-actually overtook nuclear's global capacity in 2003, rivaled its 2004 and will match its 2005 electricity output, and should exceed its 2010 output by 43 percent.

I've checked the numbers and global nuclear generating capacity is indeed around 360GW, so the only way they can get those numbers is to use ALL hydro generating stations instead of just the ones that are under 10MW.

[Lord of the Abyss]

"I've always been, and am today, open-minded about the possibility that [nuclear energy] may have hidden merits," Lovins notes. "But based on the literature and on deep practical experience of electric efficiency and production in scores of countries, I see no evidence that nuclear power, using any technology, under any political system (let alone an attractive one), is or promises to become an economically, technically, or socially sound energy solution. "

That sounds a lot more like ideologically driven rhetoric than a rational analysis; it's way too absolute. Any technology ? And what does he mean by "socialy sound" anyway ? That sounds like a PC way of saying PC.

[Quadlok]

What I find really dubious is their inclusion of cogeneration and biomass power production, both of which still contribute a large amount of greenhouse gas to the atmosphere. You'll also notice that they gloss over the fact that wind and solar production are only intermitant and highly location dependant.

The article is right about traditional nuke plants being very expensive, though. But from what I've heard, there are lots of much cheaper nuclear designs on the way.

[Darth Wong]

In any case, even if it's true, it glosses over some important facts:

1) Many alternative-energy sources have unreliable output patterns. Solar and wind are good examples of this.

2) Many alternative-energy sources are geographically dependent. Geothermal is a good example of this.

3) Cogeneration is a way of recovering what was previously waste heat in large industrial facilities, but you can't "add" that at will; once the majority of large high-heat industrial facilities start co-generating, that well runs dry.

[aerius]

It seems I've been a bit too hasty. Looking at the charts for Installed Capacity from the same website, it may indeed be possible for under 10MW hydro plants to generate the amount of power the article in the OP claims. Total hydro generation capacity is 720GW, for renewables it's 62GW, and nuclear as mentioned is 360GW or so.

However, note the actual amount of energy generated, which is measured in kilowatt hours. Despite having twice the installed power capacity, hydro barely manages to generate more energy than nuclear, as mentioned before, hydro pumps out 2600 billion kWh and nuclear 2500kWh.

Which means that for whatever reason, hydro plants are either shut down or not running anywhere near full capacity a lot of the time. The unreliable generation that Mike has mentioned. I know of several places where droughts can and have dropped resevoir levels to the point where power generation is severely limited or impossible. I suspect this is a big part of why hydro plants generate so little energy from so much installed capacity.

[RedImperator]

At any rate, a hydro plant is hardly environmentally neutral, as anyone who's tried to go camping in Flaming Gorge lately could tell you. They're perfectly clean as far as emissions go, but they destroy whatever was upsteam of them, sometimes for hundreds of miles, and they play merry hell with fish migration and riverine ecosystems.

[tharkûn]

At any rate, a hydro plant is hardly environmentally neutral, as anyone who's tried to go camping in Flaming Gorge lately could tell you. They're perfectly clean as far as emissions go, but they destroy whatever was upsteam of them, sometimes for hundreds of miles, and they play merry hell with fish migration and riverine ecosystems.

Right about the ecological impacts, wrong about the emissions. When you flood upstream for the first time you trap huge amounts of organic material, once the water rises that organic matter undergoes a good deal anaerobic decomposition on the lakebottom. So after first building a dam you release large amounts of methane into the atmosphere.

After that you have cyclical dry and wet seasons which draws down the lake water, permitting new plants to grow in the rich soil. Come spring the water rises and that matter ends up undergoing yet more anaerobic decomposition. If you have large seasonal/yearly changes in lake area you end up with a moderately efficient machine for converting atmospheric carbon dioxide into methane (which is over twenty times better at heat trapping). In some cases dams have higher emissions than comparable wattage natural gas plants.

It pisses me off to no end that everyone talks about the environmental friendliness of "renewable energy", and then just about everyone simply externalizes their adverse environmental impacts. Hydropower emits no greenhouse gases, only if you externalize methane production as it doesn't happen at the turbine. Solar power doesn't pollute, unless you don't allow them to externalize the massive pollution inherent to etching silicon.

The only bloody reason nuclear power's numbers suck is that most of the plants in the developed world - minus France and Japan are OLD and more modern designs and egineering could make them cheaper and more productive. Of course if the plants were regulated in a remotely reasonable fashion the price would drop dramaticly, but let's just go back to playing with renewables which can ignore INHERENT costs and concerns because that makes them look better.