Ferdinand E. Banks says

I do however know about what Chancellor Merkel has proposed, and I don't like it. I don't like it because it puts MY standard of living in danger. In my talks on nuclear and oil at the Singapore Energy Week, I said that the major problem when dealing with energy topics is the lies and misunderstandings that are circulated by members of the anti-nuclear booster clubs. Yes, many persons do not like nuclear, and I can respect that, but what I cannot respect are claims that wind and solar can replace nuclear in Sweden where I live, and also probably most of Germany. If it cant, then Germany will require electricity from Sweden and elsewhere and...need I say more.

Karol Mazur says

Harry Valentine says

The Fukushima debacle may have given Germany's Chancellor Merkel cause to doubt nuclear power. That powerplant was located near the "Pacific Ring of Fire" that is prone to earthquakes and tidal waves. A seawater-cooled nuclear power station built on the shores of the Baltic Sea and the North Sea would be away from earthquake zones and tidal waves. Likewise, France could build seawater-cooled nuclear power stations on the shores of the Mediterranean Sea or English Channel, where tidal waves and earthquakes are rare. Instead, France chooses to build air-cooled power stations that have to operate at reduced output during hot summer weather, when demand for electric power is at a peak.

The only kind of cost-competitive renewable power that Germany could access (via undersea power cable), would be hydroelectric power and geothermal from Iceland. Norway has much undeveloped potential for cost-competitive. oceanic tidal power, however, that output may only meet local Norwegian demand.

In these very challenging economic times, Germany needs to use financial resources very efficiently . . . . . this means UNsubsidized electric power generation, even if it is to be imported. Radiation-free fusion power generation may be decades into the future . . . . until then and due to economic constraints, subsidy-free power generation will need to prevail, even if it is nuclear.

Harry Valentine

Ferdinand E. Banks says

I also like the Swedish way of dealing with this issue. Swearing to initiate all sorts of soft energy investments, but never doing them. As for Siemans betting on solar and wind, well why not. Whether their executives bet on solar or wind, or nuclear, their salaries will continue to be paid. What is happening in Germany is an attack on the standard of living of gainfully employed Germans, but have no fear: nothing will come of it. Only the completely and totally stupid believe that Germans will accept a decline in their incomes and pensions and welfare in order to allow Angela Merkel and her foot soldiers to enjoy another term or two in office.

Karol Mazur says

The most probable, however, development in our country is (as you know) shale gas. If its exploitable (still unsure) Germany could benefit from this as well. Anyway, it's still a relatively distant solution and Germany needs one now.

Ferdinand E. Banks says

Among other things, you should shorten your excellent article, maybe put it in several versions, and make sure that it is widely distributed. I can respect people who do not want nuclear for one reason or another, even wrong reasons, but the belief that nuclear can be replaced by wind and solar and perhaps other options is strictly crazy. These people need the kind of information in your article, and perhaps your other work.

I encountered one of these nutters at a conference in Singapore recently, and it was indeed a frightening spectacle to see an intelligent and highly educated man sprouting nonsense. Later he sent a message to a Swedish parasite saying that I had disgraced my university, which was probably true, although the only thing I did was to say that it did not take 10 years to construct a reactor, and Sweden constructed 12 in 13 years. I admit however that constructing 12 reactors in 13 years was a disgraceful achievement, especially since it eventually gave us one of the lowest electricity prices in the world.

Jerry Watson says

On a brighter note, I do not believe the US will follow suit. It is my conjecture that the US can thank its nuclear navy this. We have so many ex navy nuke’s in the US I feel it tempers the fear of nukes in this country and give a reasonable base of support.

As I have previously stated I am opposed to nuclear construction in US based on the ridiculous prices rather the fear of the technology. I can’t understand how China can put in Nukes for $1600/KW in the US the same AP1000 unit is four times that amount. $1600/KW seems like a bargain at $6400/KW one can build a Combined Cycle Plant and enough gas to run it for it life for less. I am missing something somewhere.

Ferdinand E. Banks says

If it is true that the cost of new power in the US is 6400 dollars/kw, then something is definitely wrong. Of course, speaking with my economist hat firmly on my head, I would say that if the Chinese can do it for 1600, then the US can do it too - if they want to.

Jim Beyer says

Jerry Watson says

According to the EIA $5339/KW is the US overnight cost for Nuclear generation, so the actual cost is somewhere above $5300 provided the EIA is on target.

I was in Georgia a couple of weeks ago and saw the $14 billion price tag for the Vogtle units 3 and 4 and divided the $14 billion by 2200MW output for the two AP1000’s and came up with roughly $6400/KW. Here is the EIA web address for anyone that might be interested: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/beck_plantcosts/index.html.

Using either number US nuclear generation is pricey compared to combined cycle natural gas or to Chinese sister units. After the Chinese build a couple of dozen units for practice hopefully the US mint can print fifty billion dollars and get them to build a couple dozen Nuclear units in the states at the Chinese price. On second thought since the Chinese government will likely loan the money back to the US they could build the units and we can simply send them an IOU. This approach would save a lot of printing and green ink.

bill payne says

Preliminary results of investigation are pointing to possible fraud for the reason of non-response of those who should know if Heat Rate applies to wind an solar generation of lectricty or not. PNM foils stated that it does not.

Incompetence nominations are being considered.

http://www.prosefights.org/deaton/deaton.htm#chu

bill payne says

Some threaten to bomb Iran's nuclear generations of electrity sites

Bad idea?

http://www.radiojavan.com/mp3s/mp3/Ahmad-Saeedi-Dooset-Daram

bill payne says

Regards, Google 'admiral william h payne' :-)

Adhishri Shangari says

http://www.energycentral.com/generationstorage/nuclear/news/en/22501184/U-S-to-restart-construction-of-nuclear-reactors-Toshiba-arm-to-deliver-new-model

Clearly we can see such political dilemma will again keep Germany at receiving end in Nuclear technology and power generation

Constantin Robitu says

Don Hirschberg says

Ferdinand E. Banks says

I also know that while you and many people on this site dont like making mistakes, many people dont mind it at all, and apparently get a kick out of it. The US president goes to Australia and talks about stationing marines in that corner of the world, and the US Secretary of Energy sounds like a straight man in a bad comedy act, and American voters reelect a man who started a war on the basis of a lie, and...and....

In the long run somebody important will conclude that reactors can be constructed in the US at least as rapidly as in China, and while some other costs may be higher, it wont be necessary to pay six thousand dollars for a kW of capacity...I hope.

David Barge says

Ten years ago the great hope was the reactors in Finland, and look how that turned out for the time and budget. Someone needs to build one and prove that it actually can happen with an approved design. Once that occurs at Vogtle, doubling the nuclear capacity in the US is not a farfetched proposition at all since many sites have room and design basis for more reactors and the modern reactors are of higher capacity.

Another thing about Nuclear is "deregulation" in the US will ultimately benefit the industry. The history of the industry is that in the 70s (mostly) they built the nukes and then spent the 80s and most of the 90s figuring out how to run them, and for the 80s ran them badly. In the process some closed that were badly run, badly sited (Zion comes to mind, and who can forget Shoreham), or for other daft reasons (Rancho Seco), and many more that were badly run changed hands to operators that actually wanted to run them properly. Previous to the mid and late 90s, that changing hands just wasn't an effective solution regulatorially. Market opening and 888 and all that good stuff enabled such transactions.

Of course, the first nuke getting built is the highly regulated Vogtle. I long believed it would be the first since I thought the only company in the US industry that really could just decide to do it and actually execute would be Southern. Exelon could conceviably too, but there isn't really the compelling case for new nukes anywhere that they operate just yet at least that I can see. For a little while South Texas looked like it might prove me wrong, but it isn't going anywhere without CPS or without a functioning long term capacity market. If ERCOT had one, likely there would be a business case today to continue units 3 and 4 based on coal retirement.

As for Deutschland, I don't know enough about their politics to opine on whether or not they will do something stupid like shut down their nukes.

Len Gould says

Fred Linn says

Well, you can always wait and see how Dr. Andrea Rossi's Ecat cold fusion reactor works out. It was demonstrated and accepted by a commercial buyer at the end of last month.

Ferdinand E. Banks says

And once again: if one company can do it, every firm in the industrial world can. - at least in the long run. That is what economics is all about. Sweden constructed 12 reactors in 13 years, and they could do it now, if they stopped the ignorant chatter and got down to business.

And if they cant get people in the US who can build plants for X dollars per kilowatt, just send Hillary and her foot soldiers to all the Technological Universities in Europe and Canada and India, with bushell baskets filled with green cards, and offers of jobs in the nuclear industry, and studio appartments at a modest rent, and see what happens. Why, I might even go back into engineering, although I am not certain that...well, you know.

Michael Keller says

The power from renewable energy is not constant nor can it be counted on, thus graphs of "energy mix" are misleading to the extent that a simple replacement of nuclear (or coal for that matter) with "renewable" is neither realistic nor practical.

Industry needs reliable power to provide competitive goods and services. Absent such reliability, you are out of business (or you provide your own power, if you can). I believe forecasts that renewable energy can carry an industrial economy are essentially grossly ill conceived.

The real question is whether or not an economic recovery is reasonably possible when reality finally rears its ugly head -- of course the politicians who “choose poorly" will be happily retired in a life of luxury.

Karol Mazur says

Michael Keller - my intention was not to upend anything and mislead readers. What's more, in further paragraphs I explain that wind (so other renewables) has problem with constant energy supply - that's why there are artificial dam lakes. Those statistics are provided by renowned institutions, I have also given exact link to it so everyone can check it. On the other hand, I have never seen any statistics presenting renewables energy supply in a way that would correspond to your reasoning. Maybe logics behind it is that if wind stops blowing then some more energy may be produced with increased biomass input etc. So that the general energy-supply structure will be left unchanged (or maybe it is a simple average number). If I am wrong - please correct me.

Michael Keller says

In the case of Germany, the economic health of the nation is being subjected to what amounts to a roll of the dice. In my opinion, the dice are loaded against a good outcome.

Michael Keller says

Jim McBride says

I agree with Dr. Banks that eventually the Germans will re-adopt nuclear. Not to say it's a bad idea to retire the older fleet of nuclear (in EUR and USA). I think we should be spending more on advanced-cycle reactor research to complete the fuel cycle for nuclear.

Ultimately what matters is the cost of energy. It's a basic economic input. Matters not whether it's subsidized or not, a country is going to pay what it truly costs one way or another, and wind and solar are really just a good way to lower your standard of living. The Germans have ALREADY made that choice.

Ferdinand E. Banks says

But that is what politics is and has always been about, only it seems to be getting worse.

Fred Linn says

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_States

Don Hirschberg says

Only three small areas of the world, European Union, USA/Canada, and Japan/S.Korea, with 1 billion people use half of all the electricity. The other 6 billion use the other half. (Some among the “others” are high per capita consumers themselves, such as Russians and Australians, while the 51 rapidly growing countries of sub-Saharan Africa hardly budge the meter.)

In any event there are necessarily 5 to 6 billion people who have little or no electric service. They want it before their grandchildren die. Yet we often focus on the 1in 7 who have good service. We need cheap generating plants for as far as the eye can see.

Given 7 billion people this year and 7.1 billion next year there is no solution.

Jerry Watson says

I believe we can count Watts Bar 1 as complete since its output is at 100%, so there a relatively recent 1000 plus megawatts of Nuke on the US grid. Also Watts Bar 2 is in the process of being refitted and completed.

FYI Nuclear Plant output is public info on the NRC site. I used to give it a look every morning when I was a Power Trader. The site is: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/event-status/reactor-status/ps.html

As for 64% opposing Nukes what percentage oppose any power plant construction? What percentage opposes coal or even windmills? Windmills kill more birds than Nuclear plants. Wind plants have often opposition for poor aesthetics. Are you accusing the US public of being informed? If so based on what? I doubt I have either knowledge or understanding to decide what form and amount of generation is appropriate for the US. However, I am sure I know more than 99 plus percent of the general population. Has public opinion became the way to resolve technical issues?

Fred Linn says

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_Bar_Nuclear_Generating_Station

How many hydrogen bombs do we need?

I think the correct answer is: D) none of the above.

Len Gould says

Jorge Montero says

Then, at least one of you was honest and admitted that you prefer to live with nuclear danger on your backyard if you can keep you "quality of life".

Maybe its time you look to other countries. Some, can generate their electricity from renewables (93% !) with no storage. I m talking about Costa Rica. Seems you guys are focusing your engineering in the wrong problem. Renewables can be combined to power a system, ... alone! or almost alone.

Ferdinand E. Banks says

But you are right about the danger. I can hardly think of anything simpler than building safe nuclear plants, and protecting them after they are constructed, but the dumb politicians in this country are more concerned with helping the US and EU to fight stupid wars on the other side of the world.

Fred Linn says

Len Gould says

Don Hirschberg says

Admonishing others not blessed with hydro potential is neither helpful nor gracious.

mike alexy says

Having said that, a second question we might ask is: why is Costa Rica still getting as much as 7% of their electricty from fossil fuels. They have no fossil fuel resource, so it is all imported. They have abundant hydro (Lake Arenal and riverine), abundant wind (again Lake Arenal and the West coast), abundant geothermal (multiple volcanoes and hot springs) and very good solar (northwest). And, they have a pretty good (all things considered) transmission system. Seems like they ought to be at more than 100% (net), exporting some renewable electricty to their neighbors, Panama and Nicaragua, particularly now that there is a multi-country network in place.

Just a thought.

Don Hirschberg says

Recently all the large so=called environmental groups characterized those who supported power dams as evil people. Who could be opposed to free running rivers – natural? These folks even want to remove existing dams. Some small ones were destroyed.

What goes on in Hawaii and such as Costa Rica and volcanic islands hardly amounts to a row of beans. In two weeks world population increases by a Costa Rica. And they all come naked.

Hawaii is still a special case of weirdness. Many years ago I advised at the Barbour Point refinery (then SOCAL, maybe still is) trouble shooting. And not much in Hawaii made sense to me then except that every thing was geared to the image as a vacation paradise. Property could not be bought only long term leased. A German car (for example) cost twice the mainland price. Sugar, their main export cost far more in Honolulu than on the “Mainland.. I lived at a very expensive room at the Reef Hotel. There was no wall on the beach side, only huge glass doors left open, and curtains. The room was damp and noisy (surf) 24 hours a day and people on the beach. I had great problem getting service in the hotel restaurants or those in the neighborhood. I eventually figured out they did not want to sacrifice a table to a single man. Particularly one with reading matter. So I often ate on a stool at a drug store counter. Every time I wanted to use my car I had to use a valet, both out and in.

So it does not surprise me even a little that Hawaiians would not sacrifice anything idyllic. The cost to the world? Perhaps a few seconds of energy to a 1.1 billion Indians?

Ferdinand E. Banks says

I also gave a lecture at some sort of energy research institute, and I think that I can truthfully say that the people attending didn't know a _______ thing. But that is the way things are in the great world of energy economics.

Anyway, adding pluses and minuses, we came out well ahead.

Jim Beyer says

The Hawaii Natural Energy Institute?

I did a back of the envelope analysis for Hawaii. They are rich in energy resources; solar, wind, biomass. But they import fuel at great expense. They should convert their cars to run on biomethane and electricity (Plug-in hybrid). Range isn't a huge problem, because you can't drive all that far on an island.

Fuel for ships and aircraft is another matter, but you could replace fuel used in ground transport with methane and electricity. Unfortunately, I think they've been bit with the hydrogen bug (at least they were).

Same thing goes for Iceland; lots of opportunities there, at least before their economy got trashed by a half dozen bankers.....

Don Hirschberg says

They don’t bother me, I like to look at and hear oil refineries and blast furnaces. All that energy going to waste as lava flows into the ocean bothers me, completely irreversible, zero Carnot Efficiency.

Malcolm Rawlingson says

Malcolm

Malcolm Rawlingson says

Don Hirschberg says

Ferdinand E. Banks says

Iceland should soon be back on its feet. What went wrong there? Well, an attack of the stupids.

But even so they have got it made. I dont know how big the plant ithey have for smelting bauxite is, but given the population of that Island, that plant and perhaps another of its size, should guarantee them eternal prosperity - if they dont get periodic attacks of the stupids.

I'm also curious as to how they produce their energy for industrial purposes, but not curious enough to go into it.

And they handled their troubles correctly. As far as I know they let their banks take the fall, which means that the people who backed those banks took a fall too, and that was that: only a very limited amount of harm done. I've also had many students from Iceland. Very smart ladies and gents.

Len Gould says

Takuma Amano says