|
Deeper Thoughts Than Usual About Nuclear Energy |
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
"I'm a social scientist, Michael. That means I can't explain electricity, or anything like that, but if you want to know about people I'm your man." -J.B. Handelsman in Cartoonbank. com (The New Yorker Collection, 1986) My situation is somewhat different, Michael. I knew enough about electricity to work on power lines for the U.S. Army before falling into disfavour with my superiors, and later I designed terminal installations for the U.S. Navy, but although I have taught social science (i.e. economics) in 14 universities, I am still unable to understand why so many people are willing to risk the economic futures of themselves and their families by falling in love with bunkum put into circulation by persons with a psychotic hatred of technological excellence, although they are quite capable of enjoying its material advantages. Something to be aware of here is that the rich will never be without reliable and plentiful energy, regardless of its availability or lack thereof to the less fortunate. One reason is that they are fully aware of its importance. Perhaps the most straightforward reasoning in favour of nuclear-based electricity is in the non-technical article of Rhodes and Beller (2000). They say that "Because diversity and redundancy are important for safety and security, renewable energy sources ought to retain a place in the energy economy of the century to come." The meaning here is clear, especially if you add that we probably will never possess what is known in intermediate economic theory as the optimal amount of nuclear power. Next they unambiguously state that "nuclear power should be central. Nuclear power is environmentally safe, practical and affordable. It is not the problem -- it is one of the solutions." Everyone of course does not welcome this kind of reminder. The construction of the Swedish nuclear sector and its later development was one of the most impressive engineering phenomena of the 20th century, however eventually a glib argument began to circulate that nuclear energy was just a "parenthesis" in world energy history, and a recent prime minister called nuclear "obsolete". Just for the record, the Swedish nuclear sector -- comprising 12 reactors, and supplying almost half of the Swedish electric power -- was constructed in only 13 years. In the period before electric deregulation gained momentum, the cost of electricity generated in Swedish nuclear facilities was among the lowest in the world -- and occasionally the lowest. In addition, to my great surprise, I discovered that the Swedish electricity price was also extremely low. This was especially favorable for the Swedish industrial sector. In
the most nuclear intensive country in the world -- which is Assuming
that this is comprehensible, I would like to emphasize that nuclear cost
issues need to be examined in greater detail for a meaningful discussion of
electricity generation to take place. For I have had the misfortune to see many estimates of the cost of a kilowatt of capacity of nuclear energy. Too many as far as I am concerned! They range from $1500/kW by the director of an electric generating firm, to $9000/kW by a gentleman who is convinced that most of my work on the economics of nuclear energy hardly deserves to be called nonsense. In my own calculations I often use $2500-3000/kW. In a similar vein, a (3rd Generation) reactor is being constructed in Finland at the present time that has a capacity of 1,600 megawats (= 1600 MW), which makes it the largest in the world from the point of view of capacity, and initially the intention was to construct it in 5 years. An early estimate of its investment cost was 5 billion dollars. Now it appears that it will take 8 years to construct this reactor, and it has been claimed that before grid power is attained, its cost may reach 8 billion dollars, and perhaps slightly more. None
of this bothers me, because although much of this depressing news originates
with engineers who have a far more thorough knowledge of industrial
management and engineering than I ever possessed, I am satisfied with my
ability to examine the issue on the basis of economics and history. First of
all we can consider the time from construction start to commercial operation
of nuclear power plants in six important industrial countries. The figures
that will be given below originate in the database of the International
Atomic Energy Agency, and are quoted in an important article by Roques, Nuttall, Newbery, de Neufville and Connors (2006). I have also questioned
Fabien Roques -- who wrote the chapter on nuclear
energy in the latest IEA survey -- and he assures me that he finds them
realistic. I quote them here employing the scheme [Country (Minimum Time,
Maximum Time, Average Time)], where the times are of
course construction times, and these are measured in years. Worldwide, since l991, the figures given by Roques (et al) are (4.0, 8.0, 5.2).
With an average construction time of 5.2 years, it might therefore be
possible to argue that taking 8 or 9 years to construct a nuclear facility is
an aberration, and in the fullness of time, the average plant will be
constructed in about 5 years. My position of course is that once the nuclear renaissance get up steam, the average plant will be
constructed in 4 years or less. As I informed someone in one of the forums to
which I contribute, unlike most concerned citizens, I know what happened in
e.g. the It
also needs to be stressed that the Another
quantitative triumph was the According
to Donald E. Carr in his brilliant book (1976), the Japanese were able to
construct a nuclear plant in 4 years in the l970s, which leads me to believe
that they will be able to construct one in 3 years when their decision makers
and voters eventually comprehend what awaits their standard of living if they
do not get the energy message. (I was also told some years ago in I can close this short contribution by pointing out that when the next (or 4th) generation of nuclear plant appears, it probably won't make a great deal difference if it does take 5 or 6 years to construct a nuclear facility: in theory, 4th Generation equipment is greatly superior to previous models. I
would also like to stress that I am familiar with many of the claims of
nuclear failure that are in constant circulation throughout this old world of
ours, but as it happens I am singularly unimpressed. American industry was
able to bring about miracles during WW2 because for the most part pessimism
and failure were not encouraged -- as is NOT the case today with both nuclear
energy and the References Banks, Ferdinand E. (2009). 'Economic theory and nuclear energy: a long survey'. (Forthcoming) ______ . (2009). Energy and economy: a global approach. (Forthcoming) ______
. (2007). The Political Economy of World Energy: An Introductory Textbook.
Carr,
Donald E. (1976). Energy and the Earth Machine. Constanty, H. (1995). "Nucleaire: le grand trouble" L'Expansion (68-73). Martin,
J-M. (1992). Economie et Politique de L'energie. Rhodes, Richard and Denis Beller (2000), 'The need for nuclear power'. Foreign Affairs (January-February). Roques, Fabien and William J Nuttall, David Newbery, Richard de Neufville, Stephen Connors, (2006), 'Nuclear power: a hedge against undertain gas and carbon Prices'. The Energy Journal (No. 4). Rose, Johanna (1998). "Nya Krafter", Forskning och Framsteg (September). Thunell, J. (1979). Kol, Olja, Kärnkraft -- en Jamförelse. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Do you agree or disagree with this article? Send in your own article.
Readers Comments
|
Date |
Comment |
|
Harry
Valentine |
There have been numerous technical advances in nuclear energy that include the development of mini-reactors from Toshiba, Hyperion, NuScale Power and Adams Nuclear. There are also developments in radiation-free nuclear power using boron. Despite public objection (NIMBY) there will be an expanded role for nuclear power over the long-term future. I expect that the costs of new generation (unsubsidized) nuclear power will be competitive against other power generation technologies. |
|
Edward A. Reid, Jr. |
If we are to continue to have a reliable electricity grid and we must reduce CO2 emissions dramatically, we will need major sources of reliable, dispatchable, carbon-free baseload and intermediate power. Nuclear will be a major contributor, unless some other technologies offer better reliability and delivered power cost. Right now, that looks like a major challenge. Ed |
|
Bob
Amorosi |
Yes
large central nuclear plants can be close to, if not are, the lowest
operational cost source of power. One must ask why large numbers of new
nuclear plants are not getting built yet at a time when alarm bells are
sounding an urgent need for much more generation down the road in much of The answer is simple. The real problem is getting investors and / or governments to open their wallets up front to build them. Putting more energy efficiency into products and machinery and retrofitting residential or industrial buildings is also plagued by the same problem. |
|
Ferdinand E. Banks |
The nuclear renaissance has probably already started, since our political masters are apparently being told by a number of smart people what will eventually happen if it does not get started. But that doesn't suffice for me. What I want is for nuclear to be considered a public good, or maybe a public-type good, like streetlights and parks and police and armies, and if e.g. Wall Street can't provide the money then the tax payers will have to provide it. In the case of the US this should not be a problem, because if those two stupid wars that were won four or five years ago were officially declared over and done with, there would be plenty of billions available for the energy that American voters absolutely must have - although they seem to be a little vague on the details of this subject. The
other part of this 'thing' for me is found in the comment by Ed Reid. In the
old days I quite simply would have stood outside the venue for the big talkathon in |
|
Edward
A. Reid, Jr. |
Fred, You may find this interesting. http://www.theenergycollective.com/TheEnergyCollective/45911 Ed |
|
James Carson |
Fred, Why do you think that political leaders listen to smart people? Further, there would be plenty of money for nuclear except for the problem of limiting liability in the event of a catastrophic accident. |
|
Ferdinand
E. Banks |
James, frankly I think that it is my duty - and yours - and most of the people publishing articles and comments on this site - to give advice to politiciians and their helpers, and if they don't take it and like it to keep giving it to them until they get the message. I don't agree with some of the people and ideas on this site from time to time, but i regard EnergyPulse as the first team. In fact from time to time I'm amazed that they haven't asked for my resignation. A catastropic accident you say. Read the article by Rhodes and Beller. According to them there is the equivalent of a catastropic accidents every year as a result of the use of fossil fuels and the like, only instead of calling them accidents they are called progress.Admittedly, a bad conventional accident could take place at any time, but a little clarity my be useful here. According to what I read, Three Mile Island was a meltdown, but not a catastrophe; and fairly close to Sweden - in Lithuania - was a plant (Ignalina) which must have been one of the most dangerous in the world. I believe that I was the first person to suggest that it should be scrapped and that country should receive some big bucks for doing so - which may have happened. |
|
John Droz, jr. |
Mr. B: Good comments all on nuclear. In my experience the main
reason for delays in If you are writing a book I may have some data that might be of interest to you, so feel free to email me. My online energy presentation also discusses nuclear quite a bit "www.slideshare.net/JohnDroz/energy-presentationkey-presentation". (My email address is there.) |
|
Richard
Vesel |
Prof. Banks, I think we might be seeing a situation where the line from "A Field of Dreams" will apply... "Build it, and they will come..." Lots of designs on paper, lots of permits in place, lots of people wanting a positive result. But no plants built - is there anything under actual construction right now? I think the
industry sits back and waits for as much of an "incentive package"
as they can get, but there is only talk of such in the halls of I guess that's what happens when you try to save a billion or two on a new plant, in a private market economy... One thing that
I will suggest about the driver behind It was ALL public spending. The government bought and paid for every bit of output that we could deliver. Who wouldn't bust their behind to sell to so willing a buyer? Right now, no one is filling the buyer's role ... no one is guaranteeing a market ... no one has the seemingly bottomless pockets to make the machine run. I don't know the answer to this question, and rather than research it, I will just ask you here: Were the earlier Swedish, French and Japanese nuclear buildouts publicly or privately funded? To me, such huge projects beg for the security (and typically the accompanying inefficiency) associated with publicly funded projects. Perhaps a workable model in the current time would be public funding for the buildout, and then selling the facilities to the highest bidder AFTER they have been proven to be reliable cash-cows. What do you think? Regards, RWVesel |
|
Ronald R. Cooke |
There is nothing in the proposed House Energy Bill H.R.2454 that encourages the development of nuclear power. USEC's loan guarantee application has been turned down by DOE. That
apparently leaves The
storage site in Politicians routinely deride any thought of reprocessing nuclear fuel. Influential environmentalists don't want nuclear power because it is "dirty". Additional
nuclear electric power is a fantasy, and will continue to e a fantasy until
there is a shortage of electricity. Look at what happened in Wake up! |
|
Don
Giegler |
Gee, Fred, your enthusiasm knows no bounds. USDOE EIA 2008 Electric Power Annual says average nuclear power plant operating expenses for major U.S. IOEUs inflated from $0.0182/kWh in 2005 to $0.0200/kWh in 2007. Are you sure we should continue on such a reckless trajectory? 2009 EPA with 2008's damages should appear sometime this October. |
|
Don Hirschberg |
Phooey. Nothing here to carp about. |
|
James
Carson |
Perhaps
you should consider that there is no shortage of generating capacity in the James Carson, RisQuant Energy |
|
Ferdinand E. Banks |
I'm not worried at all Don G. and folks. I woke up this morning
to read on the front page of my newspaper that someone had burned down a
school in a When
About
this abundance of generating capacity in the |
|
Richard
Vesel |
Mr. Carson, Perhaps YOU should note that the excess capacity we enjoy at this particular instant is due to the recession and generally reduced economic activity. Should we assume that you see this as a long term solution for our energy picture - keep the economy restrained to insure we have enough capacity??? Silly as though that thought may seem, you should consider that even with that "plan" - generation plants will eventually age and have to be taken offline... Mr. Geigler, I have to assume you are being facetious in your quoting operating expenses of nuclear to be a mere 2-cents per kwh, right? Sometimes one has to wonder in these forums...or maybe I just have a problem differentiating sarcasm from dumb comments (no personal reference intended). Prof. Banks, We do have a past model for public funding of a large power system buildout here in the states - the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) - I am sure you know of it. The following is courtesy of Wikipedia: ================================================================ "The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) is a federally owned corporation in the United States created by congressional charter in May 1933 to provide navigation, flood control, electricity generation, fertilizer manufacturing, and economic development in the Tennessee Valley, a region particularly impacted by the Great Depression. The TVA was envisioned not only as an electricity provider, but also as a regional economic development agency that would use federal experts and electricity to rapidly modernize the region's economy and society. The TVA's
jurisdiction covers most of TVA owns and operates the following generation mix - hydro, coal-fired, nuclear. It is a pretty well run organization at this point, not perfect mind you, as any large utility organization always has its problems. I personally
think that model would work again, and I offer the following mechanism. Sell
TVA (or parts of it) to the private sector, and use the proceeds ONLY to fund
a new set of TVA-owned nuclear units. Build those between now and 2020, and
sell off at least some of that new capacity for a profit (presumably). On a
more distributed scale, a Federal Green Power Authority with a New Energy
charter, and a specificied CO2-free generation mix,
might be the right thing to do now... It would show a clear commitment by the
administration to the We wouldn't necessarily have to privatize TVA assets to fund the program, but it would keep the neo-con public-program-funding critics a little quieter. Regards, RWVesel |
Return to Environmental Update
Return to Homepage
Roubidoux
True tales of the Huckleberry Finn type adventures of a boy who journeys from
delinquency in California to Southern culture in the Missouri Ozarks. Although told
through the eyes of a twelve year old who never grows old, much of the real life
adventure is emotionally timeless with appeal to all ages. Brutally honest at
times but never off colored.
A sample from Roubidoux may be read here.
The book may be ordered here.
Do you know that your body is naturally acidic which makes you susceptible to all manner of unhealthy conditions and illnesses? By making your body alkaline instead of acidic you mitigate these potential health problems. One way of doing this is to drink alkaline water. The above machine is called the "Athena" and makes tap water into pure, clean alkaline water. It's rather expensive, but it's the best in the world. Isn't your health worth it? Click here to learn more and order it.
