20-09-2003 04:58									#31
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by DanS FYI: That's a bullshit article. Case in point. I also love the favorable references to Lyndon LaRouche.

well, I am just finding links, why don't you find some also?

Jon Miller

	20-09-2003 05:00									#32
	Increase Your PM Length

hopefully you will ahve no problems with this one

which shows that Nuclear Power is not more expensive than our other sources currently

Jon Miller

	20-09-2003 05:01									#33
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: percentage matters because that is what is comparable with nations

There's more way than one way to compare nations, silly. Why is the percentage more pertinent than other measures?

	20-09-2003 05:02									#34
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

oops

missed link

http://www.nmcco.com/education/fact...ess/perform.htm

JOn Miller

	20-09-2003 05:02									#35
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: well, I am just finding links, why don't you find some also?

Why do I need links to tell me or you what I already know?

	20-09-2003 05:04									#36
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Jon Miller unstable places (like Russia or Iran) shuold not have access to nuclear power because it can be very bad if it is not done properly (as Chernobyl and 3 Mile showed) Jon Miller

Sweden does not have any reactor of the unsafe Russian design. But it is actually illegal to make research on improvements, after the nuclear power referendum in 1979. I was to young to vote, but thought: "Yes, for sure!". The majority voted: "Yes, but no" (The now infamous Hans Blix actually was the "Yes, but no" campaign general. The idea was to build 12 reactors, then research other sources of energy and close all reactors by 2010. Now we have 7 years to go, and not a single cost-effective alternative has been invented. One reactor has been closed but I doubt that we can afford closing more.

	20-09-2003 05:07									#37
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by DanS There's more way than one way to compare nations, silly. Why is the percentage more pertinent than other measures?

when we are looking at where a nation gets it's power from, for something that is unlimited like nuclear (hydro for example looking at totals would also make sense), looking at the percentage of power from that source gives the best idea of it's use of that source

for example, for a nation only using nuclear power, there would be no way for it to use more, while for a nation where nuclear power makes up 60% of the power supply, it could possible be getting more of it's power from nuclear sources

looking at total power produced from nuclear sources could not tell you anything about this

Jon Miller

	20-09-2003 05:08									#38
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

That second article that you reference is not bullshit, but leaves out half the costs.

quote: As these changes became institutionalized in utility programs, however, O&M costs stabilized. Average O&M costs for nuclear plants—measured in 1998 dollars—were 1.83 cents/kWh in 1990, 1.44 cents in 1995 and 1.35 cents in 1998 (latest data available), based on figures from the Utility Data Institute, an independent research organization. Moreover, nuclear energy is competitive with other sources of electricity. With average production costs—O&M plus fuel—of 2.13 cents/kWh in 1998, nuclear is only marginally more costly than coal at 2.07 cents/kWh, and considerably less expensive than natural gas at 3.30 cents/kWh and oil at 3.24 cents/kWh.

Nuclear power has very high capital costs, which aren't taken into account in this article. The generation costs for oil and gas are mostly tied up in O&M and fuel. So it's an apples-oranges comparison they're making.

	20-09-2003 05:08									#39
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by DanS Why do I need links to tell me or you what I already know?

because you are wrong

take a look at my most recent link

nuclear power is not expensive, and is becoming less expensive all the time (As they update their reactors)

it would become even less expensive if we started licensing new plants and the like

Jon Miller

	20-09-2003 05:11									#40
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by DanS That second article that you reference is not bullshit, but leaves out half the costs. Nuclear power has very high capital costs, which aren't taken into account in this article.

I did admit that there were high capital costs in one of my earlier posts

those however are a lot less for other countries who make great use of nuclear power (like Japan and France)

we should be able to do it at a similiar cost as them

Jon Miller

	20-09-2003 05:15									#41
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: because you are wrong

You're FOS, Jon Miller.

quote: those however are a lot less for other countries who make great use of nuclear power (like Japan and France)

I don't think they vary that substantially, especially if you consider any gov't subsidies. Certainly nothing of the magnitude to change the fact that nuclear power is much more expensive than oil or natural gas generation.

	20-09-2003 05:17									#42
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

give me the numbers if you are right

I think you are wrong, that is why I have been looking up links to give you numbers countering your conclusions

if I am wrong, do more than tell me so, give me evidence (perferibly from a good source)

Jon Miller

	20-09-2003 05:25									#43
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by DanS I don't think they vary that substantially, especially if you consider any gov't subsidies. Certainly nothing of the magnitude to change the fact that nuclear power is much more expensive than oil or natural gas generation.

I would say oil is getting governmental subsidies in the US. In one way or another. Just look at the background of the guys in your cabinet and the politics they are suggesting.

	20-09-2003 05:26									#44
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: for example, for a nation only using nuclear power, there would be no way for it to use more, while for a nation where nuclear power makes up 60% of the power supply, it could possible be getting more of it's power from nuclear sources

Energy needs are always growing. The most pertinent questions on an international scale are where you're going to add your next kilowatt hour of generation, based on dollar and environmental costs.

At the present time, natural gas electricity generation is the most attractive method for generating that next unit of generation capacity. For instance, it makes no sense for Russia to add nuke capacity, since natural gas is both plentiful and dirt cheap in Russia. Whenever Russia or Iran (for another instance) add nuke capacity, they are misallocating their funds.

On the other hand, places like Japan will likely have a tougher call to make, since it doesn't have natural gas reserves readily available (although this can change, with LNG).

	20-09-2003 05:31									#45
	Got spare money?

I agree that that is also pertinant

but as for the history of nuclear power I think the percentage is very pertinent, also if you are trying to change a nations reliance on one form for another

Jon Miller
(also I care more about the US than other nations, for example I think that Iran shouldn't because it would be better for the US if they did not)

	20-09-2003 05:42									#46
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: I would say oil is getting governmental subsidies in the US. In one way or another

The same can be said for nuclear power. The US government spends substantial sums of money in the Department of Energy subsidizing the nuke industry, which doesn't show up in the OECD numbers. The places where nuke power makes sense are either directly heavily subsidized (France) or limited by geographical reasons (Japan, SK).

I think you can make the subsidies case for oil in the US, but not yet natural gas, because we don't yet import our natural gas from the mideast. Anyway, in the US, it doesn't change the overall dynamics. OECD puts total generation costs of natural gas at 2.7 cents per kilowatt hour, nuke at 5.7 cents (2001 figures, 10% discount rate), or more than twice as expensive. Caveats being that the price of natural gas has risen and the discount rate could perhaps be lowered in 2003.

	20-09-2003 05:48									#47
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

but is the 5.7 based upon the too high costs of building the plants based off of 60s designs and the like?

or is it for other things

also, the link I gave you put just the costs of O&M and fuel at over 3 per KW hour, which is more than 2.7 (for natural gas)

nukes O&M and fuel is only 2.13 per KW hour, so it would have to be that building costs made up over 3.5 per KW hour

these buliding costs must have been huge to still be having that effect when all our plants were built (fiunished) over 20 years ago

that still doesn't dispute my argument that plants can be built for much cheaper now (and there are other doubts about your argument because your numbers are different than the numbers I provided in the link)

Jon Miller

	20-09-2003 05:56									#48
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: but is the 5.7 based upon the too high costs of building the plants based off of 60s designs and the like?

New production. But they haven't built any of the new designs, so we don't know how much they would cost. I wouldn't take the nuke industry's word for it.

quote: also, the link I gave you put just the costs of O&M and fuel at over 3 per KW hour, which is more than 2.7 (for natural gas)

That doesn't surprise me, since the natural gas fuel prices are variable and the capital costs are relatively low. It doesn't change the overall dynamics.

quote: nukes O&M and fuel is only 2.13 per KW hour, so it would have to be that building costs made up over 3.5 per KW hour

Yes. That surprises you?

quote: that still doesn't dispute my argument that plants can be built for much cheaper now (and there are other doubts about your argument because your numbers are different than the numbers I provided in the link)

Prove that they can be built cheaper now, nuke boy. I triple dog dare ya.

	20-09-2003 05:56									#49
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin It's hard to get wind power when there is no wind ... Even if you imporve the effieicny by 10 times it will still take up more space then most of our over crowed cities have room for.

I live in the northern Great Plains, and energy interests are building wind farms up here left and right nowadays. Wide open places, combined with your usual stiff prairie wind (most of the time), makes for ideal locations for turbines.

Having turbines on one's acreage isn't bad, either. Farmers are getting $3,000 per year per turbine just to have it on their property ... and if you own hundreds (or thousands) of acres, it's not like all you see are turbines out of the farm home's windows.

And, truthfully, I find the towering turbines kind of majestic. I'd hate to have one of 'em come crashing down on my vehicle or home, however. There'd be nothing left. I guess that's why the turbines are in *rural* areas.

Gatekeeper

	20-09-2003 06:00									#50
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

TIME had a very good article some months ago on the energy situation in America. To be blunt, it's not pretty, and that's due in no small part to our leaders without backbones and private interests who, naturally, desire profit first and foremost.

The TIME article mentioned natural gas specifically, and how power plants were becoming *too* dependent on it, driving up costs to heat homes (which also use NG, among other things) and forcing the U.S. to import NG.

Gatekeeper

	20-09-2003 06:01									#51
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: The TIME article mentioned natural gas specifically, and how power plants were becoming *too* dependent on it, driving up costs to heat homes (which also use NG, among other things) and forcing the U.S. to import NG.

So we import NG. What's the big deal? Canadians gotta sell things to us too.

	20-09-2003 06:03									#52
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

check out this link

http://www.nmcco.com/education/fact...ess/advance.htm

also, I would like to have numbers for costs for natural gas plants

Jon Miller

	20-09-2003 06:15									#53
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by DanS So we import NG. What's the big deal? Canadians gotta sell things to us too.

Well, gee, I don't know, Dan. Could it possibly be because we're supposed to be trying to wean ourselves off foreign sources of energy as much as possible? So now we import most of our oil, now we're importing NG from Canada (a nation which, from what I understand, may not be able to export much longer due to its domestic demand).

And now farmers are taking some flak from others for daring to turn their corn into ethanol for domestic use because, by golly, they're being subsidized to a degree to do so! (Show me an energy company that hasn't been on the government dole at one time or another.) What else are they supposed to do with corn they can't sell as a foodstuff anymore because they can't compete in the world markets (or can't sell because of GMO fears from many markets). Oh, yeah, go out of business, that's what. Heh. Another thing America might be importing in the future — its food supply — while its own fertile fields lie fallow (or are paved over) because, gosh, its farmers just weren't "efficient" enough. Woo-hoo! One more step closer to being like ancient Rome; dependent on others for far too much, IMO.

I imagine much the same furor will erupt when and if biodiesel expands beyond its current toehold.

OK. End of populist rant.

Gatekeeper

	20-09-2003 06:16									#54
	Support Apolyton

cost for korea
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewss...15834/story.htm
18.69 billion for 8 reactors making 9600 MW (total)

that is 1946.875 per KW

these should last at least 60 years for (60*375*24 = ) 540000 total hours

1946.875/540000 ~ .3 cents per KW hour

which is not really meaningful

now there are decomisioning costs, but I still doubt that it totals at over 3 cents per KW hour

if you read one of the links you will see that the reason why we pay so much for making the plants is that there was no standardisation and the like

so of course it would be very expensive for the older plants

Jon Miller

	20-09-2003 06:31									#55
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Here is a treatment of the economic issues by an IEA economist that writes the OECD/IEA electricity reports. See "Economics"...

http://www.world-nuclear.org/sym/2001/fraser.htm

In pertinent part...

quote: Well-run nuclear plants have operating costs similar to, or lower than, those of competing plants. The introduction of competitive electricity markets in most OECD countries is encouraging all operators to achieve improved plant performance and is leading to consolidation among nuclear generators and among suppliers of nuclear equipment, services and fuel. Proposals to extend the lifetime of older plants are becoming common. By contrast, new nuclear power plants face challenging competitive conditions. Fossil-fuelled plants are expected to have a lower total cost of electricity than nuclear plants in most countries under the energy market conditions and fuel prices that have prevailed in recent years (Figure 3). In addition, market liberalisation is altering the conditions under which investments in new generating plants are made in the OECD. Table 1 shows the status of market reform in OECD countries with nuclear power plants:

Here are the projected total cost figures in cents per kwh. 10% discount rate, 2001 figures. Remember the caveats above about subsidies, because it makes a large difference in some countries (but not the US, I figure).

	20-09-2003 06:34									#56
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

WIND! Just put lots and lots of wind turbines around Congress.

	20-09-2003 07:39									#57
	Tired of ads?

Are you insane chegitz!

That would overload the US electricity grid in notime!

	20-09-2003 08:22									#58
	Get a bigger avatar today!

I myself am waiting for fusion power. Meanwhile, increasing efficiency at both ends is the thing to do.

	20-09-2003 08:48									#59
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

For energy there is no beating nuclear though we need to twick other areas when and where we can. Those places where solar, wind, or geothermal will work we should build plants to take advantage of them. Rather then the government paying for and then burning excess crops they should be used to produce ethinol and/or biomass energy. Coal is to dirty and should be phased out and to help combat gloabl warming we should new nuclear plants to fill all of our other energy needs. Hydro currently makes something like 20% (I think) of our energy but we don't have any more big rivers to dam.

To further decrease green house emissions we need to slightly increase gas taxes, continually bump up CAFE standards and force Trucks and SUVs to comply with the same standdard as cars do (they're opporated like cars so lets treat them like cars), finally the government need to massively fund mass transit.

The single biggest transite priority should be to build light rail cannections with in each city so that suburbs, school, shopping centers, and business districts are connected with light rail and then have clean and efficient bus services which move people on from the light rail terminals.

	20-09-2003 08:49									#60
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara WIND! Just put lots and lots of wind turbines around Congress.

Seriously, the thing to remember about wind power is that it can never supply more than about 10-15% of the grid, because you can't control it. When it's windy, you're making power and you've gotta have a load to take it; when it's not windy and you need power you can't just turn the wind up.