Skip to main content

View Diary: Total Surface Area Required to Fuel the World With Solar (138 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  See David, here's why I consider you a liar... (0+ / 0-)

    the present cost of nuclear in the U.S. is
    well established. That is the 20% of our power that comes from nuclear. That's cheap but that's because operating a nuclear power plant is almost as cheap as operating a coal plant and a LOT cheaper than NG. And that is with ZERO subsidies.

    1. You use long-ago built plants to infer that not-yet-built plants will produce cheap power.  And you very well know that plans to build new plants are being abandoned because they can't be built cheaply enough.
    1. You totally ignore all the public money that has gone into building those existing plants.  And you ignore the current schemes of the nuclear industry to get consumers to pre-pay part of the construction costs for new plants as the job can't be done without some sort of subsidy.  You even ignore the cries from the Republicans for the government to build new nuclear plants with tax money as the financial markets walk away from those projects.

    --

    Let me ask you - Why do you continue to be so dishonest?

    Surely the nuclear industry isn't stupid enough to fund you.  They would use their money on someone who wasn't as obviously wrong so often.

    Surely, by now, you've been made aware of the reasons why nuclear is not being built on any large scale.  There is major money to be made building new nuclear plants, as with any large scale project.  If the numbers worked and the problems of storage and safety were solved then we would see lots of plants under construction in this country right now.

    Surely, by now, you're aware that nuclear cannot be built fast enough to save our climatically challenged butts.

    So what's your motivation?

    --

    Oh, and that subsidy/grid parity thing.

    The wind industry has said that it could continue to produce and increase without their subsidy, but leaving the subsidy in place creates "excessive profit" which brings more players in faster and increases the rate of installation.

    Solar is a few years from reaching that state.

    Nuclear, its big problem is that new nuclear would require a huge subsidy before it could wholesale its power to a competitive grid.

    15 to 6. Pulled ahead as soon as the gate opened and never looked back....

    by BobTrips on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 01:00:12 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Bob, you areally are pathedic. You one of those (0+ / 0-)

      screamers who yell out "shill! shill!" at ever opportunity aren't you?

      First, you have only said "you lie" without proving it. I've noted that the cost for power by the existing fleet of nuclear plants is well established. Am I lieing? If so, do prove this to be the fact (also prove that I'm lying and not just wrong). Let's examine your statements:

      You use long-ago built plants to infer that not-yet-built plants will produce cheap power.  And you very well know that plans to build new plants are being abandoned because they can't be built cheaply enough

      OK, parsing this out, there is absolutely no reason to think that NEW nuclear plants won't operate at either the same or less costs than our fleet of 104 plants. I'm assuming you agree that the less-than-2cents a kWhr is agreed upon. This is operating costs: fuel, licensing, personnel, etc etc.

      Since the new plants will be more efficient in the use of resources, it is safe to assume that these operating costs are going to be the same. There is no slight of hand here, no 'lying'. Just conjecture based on both past experience and new tech and procedures being added.

      What does this assume, and exclude? First, this is the 'cost of electricity' based on it's operations as I noted. It assumes that the note, that is the 'overnight costs to build the plant' are paid off, like most of the U.S. fleet is paid off...ergo they are cash cows.

      The actual costs per KWhr, are drawn generally two ways and have to include finance charge...almost the largest cost of any plant. So depending on the interest rates charged, the costs can be anywhere from 5 cents a KWhr up to 11 cents a KWhr. So this 'cost' is determined not based on the value and direct costs of material and labor and construction, but on interest rates.

      Clearly we will learn a huge amount of construction technique and expertise, paid for by the Chinese people, as they continue to build the 14 plants now under construction and that include 2 US designed reactors and 2 French ones. We learn as the plants progress and we profit from that experience, lowering costs.

      We have to also assume we have no idea of the cost of political opposition to nuclear energy in causing delays. The more a plant is delayed, relative to interest rates, then the costs go up. The shorter, the costs go down.

      Is this an honest way to approach costs? I think it is. There are dozens of other factors. There are dozens of objective studies that do in fact put the prices where I noted them above. So I'm no "lying" I'm garnering this information from published reports, reports I'm sure you've looked at if YOU are honest.

      Secondly: the second part of your statement is truly astounding Bob and shows you don't know what you are talking about. In fact, it's the first time I ever heard this one. It's not even a 'myth' since you are the only one to raise this: plants being 'abandoned' because they don't produce power cheaply enough!!! OMG. I know you are more intelligent than Harvey Wassermann but this is sort of along his line or argumentation.

      Dude, there are no plants being 'abandoned'. If there are, due tell. Name one. If they were, they wouldn't be generally the largest money maker in a utilities portfolio. If they were, the wouldn't be producing power at the same price as coal, which is way cheaper than ANY renewable, including wind, but except for hydro. If they were they wouldn't be re-licensing applications for EVERY one them and if they were they everyone of them wouldn't be re-licensed, they'd be shutdown.

      Bob, you got to get your act together.

      David

      Dr. Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"

      by davidwalters on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 01:50:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Go back and read carefully David, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Rei

        I never said that plants were being abandoned.

        I said that plans to build new plants were abandoned due to construction cost and lack of being able to compete in an open market.

        But we certainly have a lot of nuclear plants that have been abandoned, lots of nuclear plants that didn't even operate until the end of their initial license period.  I can almost see one out my window, it's just around the end of that ridge on the right of my view.

        Interesting how the cost of those abandoned plants are not added into the cost of nuclear produced electricity.  They are one of the hidden costs of nuclear that we don't acknowledge, do we?

        there is absolutely no reason to think that NEW nuclear plants won't operate at either the same or less costs than our fleet of 104 plants

         

        No there isn't.  Unless one takes into account several well considered studies of what new nuclear would cost.

        Of course, you're too dishonest to report any of them.  

        Now, I'm all done with you today.  I have no hope of making you an honest person, a person who is willing to present both sides of the issue you promote.  

        I just want to make sure that a flag is raised for those who might be misled.  I'd caution them to believe neither you nor I, but research the issues for themselves.

        15 to 6. Pulled ahead as soon as the gate opened and never looked back....

        by BobTrips on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 03:47:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site