Re: Why Nuclear


<dezakin@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1149194291.676336.77710@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
K. Jones wrote:
So, how about some links showing more truthful, *historical* prices
of
building both?

Historically nuclear is cheaper in some areas than coal, and coal is
cheaper most places.

Cite?

From the link you posted earlier:

Very high gas prices push choice to nuclear where coal (domestic or
imported) is costly
Nuclear construction costs (including financing) must fall by about 30
- 35% from base case level to compete with coal and/or gas absent CO2
charges in many countries

So, you agree then, as "rebel" wrote: "1 / Cost is huge in comparison
with
other means of energy supplies
,this is in the building and clean up", is essentially correct? It costs
much more to build.

No. If 20% price premium per KWh over cheap coal is 'huge' you can make
your case against that comparison, but I don't consider a 20% price
premium huge, and its certainly cheaper than nearly everything except
coal (and hydro where it hasn't been tapped) in most locales.

To quote you...."you lie so easily"....

Where do you get the 20% premium? (which, yes, is significant)
From *your* link, here's some *real* numbers.

Cost to build coal plant, $1,600/kw (though Wikipedia differs with $1,300/kw
as of 2004)
Average cost : $1,450/kw
Cost to build nuke plant, $2,347 to $2,972/kw
Average cost : $2,660/kw

Hmmmm, looks like a premium average of 80+%

Going back to the original statement "Rebel" made, which you objected to :
"1 / Cost is huge in comparison with other means of energy supplies , this
is in the building and clean up."

It's pretty clear, that at nearly twice the cost to build, your claims
aren't true.

In any case, its perfectly reasonable to expect nuclear construction
costs to drop with more modular reactor design,

*yawn*...until proven otherwise, that is a fallacy.
Never mind your should/could warm and fuzzy wishes, lets look at real facts.
Nevermind what you *think* they *should* be.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/analysis/nuclearpower.html
"there has been no new order for a nuclear power plant since the 1970s."

How many COA (Construction and Operating) licences have *been* submitted for
new construction?
Yea, thought so.

From: http://energy.senate.gov/news/rep_release.cfm?id=219405
"Coal-fired power plants are in the works in Arizona, Colorado, Montana, New
Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. The biggest plant being contemplated is a
1,500-megawatt station on Navajo land in the Four Corners region"

http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Testimony&Hearing_ID=1546&Witness_ID=4371
"Nationwide, as many as 90 new coal-fired plants are being considered with a
combined capacity of 50,000 megawatts"
"Over the next 10 years, the United States will need about 140,000 megawatts
of increased power, with about one-half or more to come from coal plants"


and to expect coal
costs to rise as global demand continues to eat into supply; Many
figures indicate that nuclear is cheaper in many locales today.

No forseeable "supply" problem

From: http://energy.senate.gov/news/rep_release.cfm?id=219405
McIlvaine said coal accounts for more than 50 percent of the nation's
electrical power and natural gas appears to be on the wane as a fuel source.
"Natural gas production is going to decline, there's no question about
that," McIlvaine said. "There's a 300-year supply of coal."

http://www.blm.gov/nhp/pubs/brochures/EnergyBro.htm
Coal is America's most abundant fossil fuel. At our current rate of use, we
have a 250-year supply.

http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Testimony&Hearing_ID=1546&Witness_ID=4371
Coal is the most abundant fossil fuel resource in the United States
These coal resources are widely distributed throughout the United States
with recoverable reserves located in 33 states.
Based on current annual production of nearly 1.1 billion short tons, the
United States has an approximate 250-year supply

http://www.powerfrontiers.com/coal.html
Coal is very abundant with an estimated 300 year supply at current levels of
demand. Due to its abundance, coal is cheap. The largest coal reserves are
in the U.S., followed by Russia, China, India and Australia.



Do you have anything *truthful* to bring to the discussion?

K. Jones



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Are there likely to be severe power shortages
    ... now electricity at night is cheaper. ... By the time those shiny new expensive nuclear power stations come online in 10-15 years time solar will be vastly cheaper. ... The capital cost of the machine capable of producing 1GW per year of thin film at Nonosolar costs $1.6m. ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Re: Why Nuclear
    ... "The cost of building new nuclear power plants has historically been much ... Historically nuclear is cheaper in some areas than coal, ...
    (sci.energy)
  • Re: Why Nuclear
    ... "The cost of building new nuclear power plants has historically been ... Historically nuclear is cheaper in some areas than coal, ...
    (sci.energy)
  • Re: For the boaters here......report your marina or fuel dock fuel prices
    ... It is cheaper than any gas you buy up your way, but it will not be the same when you get here. ... I can understand why someone might be interested in the cost of gas in an area they will be boating in. ... With the cost of fuel being so volitable, the only thing I can tell you is the price will change, and my guess is it will go up. ...
    (rec.boats)
  • Re: Diesel v gas
    ... cheaper than gas. ... it should cost 12% more. ... a bargain. ... but that gas went up. ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
Quantcast