Does nuclear power cost massive billion gov subsidies?

[mheslep]

I think there are good reasons to try to get away from fossil fuels in any case.

The problem with gas is that it is coupled to the oil market, and probably prices (although they are falling right now) will increase in the long term. So gas is going to be a very expensive thing to make electricity with. It is already now much more expensive than coal.

Also, although I'm certainly not an AGW alarmist, I think one will not be able to do without the issue. There is a serious probability that there is AGW after all, and even if it turns out not to be there, it will be a long time before this will be so obvious that it won't be a political argument anymore. So even if, against all odds, AGW turns out not to be real, "social AGW" will be with us for a few decades.

And finally, sooner or later, we WILL run out of cheap fossil fuels, even coal. Now, I know that the USA has huge reserves of coal, but Europe for instance, doesn't have many anymore. And, as you say, it is dirty, no matter how you turn it. Modern coal plants are somewhat cleaner than old plants, but it remains a very dirty thing.



Well, the nuclear boom in France was because EdF was a state monopoly. It was a state utility (but nevertheless, profitable).

How is it possible to assign profitability to a state monopoly in a meaningful way? It seems to me profitability is arbitrary in such a case, as the state can essentially charge whatever rates it whims to reach profitability. It could equally arbitrarily assign EdF a loss if it the higher (short term) goal was to provide lower rates for the public.

 

[vanesch]

How is it possible to assign profitability to a state monopoly in a meaningful way? It seems to me profitability is arbitrary in such a case, as the state can essentially charge whatever rates it whims to reach profitability. It could equally arbitrarily assign EdF a loss if it the higher (short term) goal was to provide lower rates for the public.

True, but then the rates by EdF were reasonable, and even somewhat lower than the rates in neighbouring countries, if I can believe some general surveys that have been done on the matter. That said, I agree with you that the bookkeeping of profitability of state monopolies is always an obscure issue.

 

[Morbius]

How is it possible to assign profitability to a state monopoly in a meaningful way? It seems to me profitability is arbitrary in such a case, as the state can essentially charge whatever rates it whims to reach profitability. It could equally arbitrarily assign EdF a loss if it the higher (short term) goal was to provide lower rates for the public.

mheslep,

It's EASY! Just look at what EdF charges its ratepayers and you will find that it doesn't need to
inflate the cost to be profitable. The rates EdF charges its customers are quite reasonable; and actually
LOWER than in neighboring countries.

In addition, EdF SELLS power to its neighbors like Denmark and Germany where it successfully
competes against wind [ Denmark ] and solar [ Germany ].

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[mheslep]

... The rates EdF charges its customers are quite reasonable; and actually LOWER than in neighboring countries.

That may well be true. It also misses the point I made. To determine profitability one needs a ratio of all the costs, including capital costs, to the resulting income over time. In a company owned by he state, the state can (and frequently does) throw other tax dollars at the industry, then the user rates need not be reflective of the entire cost (ala US's Amtrac, Conrail, etc). That is not to say that the French did lose money on nuclear; I'm sure French nuclear did make money given it blocked costly and delaying law suits against its nuclear projects. Either way, we don't have conclusive evidence in front of us here merely by looking at French electrical rates.

In addition, EdF SELLS power to its neighbors like Denmark and Germany where it successfully competes against wind [ Denmark ] and solar [ Germany ].

Edit: French wine also successfully competes abroad thanks, in part, to the http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/the-grapes-of-wrath-depressed-french-wine-producers-bomb-government-offices-530798.html" given by the French taxpayers.

Solar is minuscule. There's more wind energy generated in Germany in absolute terms than in Denmark.

 

[Morbius]

That may well be true. It also misses the point I made. To determine profitability one needs a ratio of all the costs, including capital costs, to the resulting income over time.

mheslep,

Those HAVE been looked at! Even with a government run corporation - the rate payers still pay
one way or the other - they pay directly in rates - or through their taxes. Either way nuclear power
IS cost effective in France.

The French taxpayers are NOT subsidizing the power purchases of Denmark and Germany.

The evidence is CLEAR - nuclear power IS economical in France. The only reason nuclear power
has economic problems in the USA is because of the delays caused by lawsuits.

That can be FIXED! The problem in the USA is that we give the anti-nukes "a second bite at the
apple" in legal parlance. We have a 2-step licensing process - one before construction, and one
before operation / after construction.

It's the opportunity to file lawsuits and rehear the same issues that they LOST on in the construction
permit process that causes the problem. The utility has borrowed money to build the plant and the
operation is held up by lawsuits and the plant can't begin earning its keep.

The push is to reform our licensing laws - so that any objections and lawsuits have to be filed at
the construction permit level. If the opponents LOSE their lawsuit the utility gets a construction
permit. If the NRC says the plant was constructed in accordance with that permit - then the utility
gets a license - and the opponents who LOST on the first round can NOT file for a second chance.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[mheslep]

mheslep,

Those HAVE been looked at! Even with a government run corporation - the rate payers still pay
one way or the other - they pay directly in rates - or through their taxes. Either way nuclear power
IS cost effective in France.

The French taxpayers are NOT subsidizing the power purchases of Denmark and Germany.

The evidence is CLEAR - nuclear power IS economical in France. The only reason nuclear power
has economic problems in the USA is because of the delays caused by lawsuits.

You seem to be mistaking evidence with capitalization.

 

[mheslep]

...That can be FIXED! The problem in the USA is that we give the anti-nukes "a second bite at the apple" in legal parlance. We have a 2-step licensing process - one before construction, and one before operation / after construction.

It's the opportunity to file lawsuits and rehear the same issues that they LOST on in the construction permit process that causes the problem. The utility has borrowed money to build the plant and the operation is held up by lawsuits and the plant can't begin earning its keep.

The push is to reform our licensing laws - so that any objections and lawsuits have to be filed at the construction permit level. If the opponents LOSE their lawsuit the utility gets a construction permit. If the NRC says the plant was constructed in accordance with that permit - then the utility gets a license - and the opponents who LOST on the first round can NOT file for a second chance.

I agree completely. I generally would support any politician proposing such. Edit: Absent such reform, I do not support limitless building of http://www.sptimes.com/2008/03/11/news_pf/State/Nuke_plant_price_trip.shtml" nuclear plants that rate holders will have to eventually pay for. (Though some more are needed even if they are expensive).

 

[Morbius]

I agree completely. I generally would support any politician proposing such. Edit: Absent such reform, I do not support limitless building of http://www.sptimes.com/2008/03/11/news_pf/State/Nuke_plant_price_trip.shtml" nuclear plants that rate holders will have to eventually pay for. (Though some more are needed even if they are expensive).

mheslep,

The power plants are capital intensive - but fuel cost is low.

Nuclear generated electricity costs about 2.0 to 2.1 cents per kilowatt-hour at the busbar; where
coal produced power is about 1.9 cents per kilowatt-hour. Nuclear is actually the 2nd cheapest
next to coal - that is without the environmental and health costs of coal being internalized.

If we augmented the cost of coal with the environmental / health costs; then it would no longer be
the cheapest; nuclear would be. The nuclear costs include the tax paid for waste disposal and
the contribution to the fund that pays for plant decommissioning.

As long as the utility doesn't face opposition from lawsuits and government; nuclear power is quite
economical. We have both extremes in the USA for comparison. If you look at California and
New York; where the State government actually opposed the power plants; then plants like
Diablo Canyon [ CA ] and Shoreham [ NY - bankrupted ] cost way more than they need to.

However, if you look at the Commonwealth Edison system serving Chicago and northern Illinois - the
fleet of 7 reactors in the Chicago area provide something like 80% of the system's power which is on
a par with France.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[mgb_phys]

The evidence is CLEAR - nuclear power IS economical in France. The only reason nuclear power has economic problems in the USA is because of the delays caused by lawsuits.

French nuclear power was also planned to be economical.
"France has 104 varieties of cheese but only one standard reactor, while the U.S. has one cheese but 104 different reactors." Dale E. Klein (NRC chairman)

 

[mheslep]

mheslep,

The power plants are capital intensive - but fuel cost is low.

Nuclear generated electricity costs about 2.0 to 2.1 cents per kilowatt-hour at the busbar; where coal produced power is about 1.9 cents per kilowatt-hour. Nuclear is actually the 2nd cheapest next to coal - that is without the environmental and health costs of coal being internalized.

If we augmented the cost of coal with the environmental / health costs; then it would no longer be the cheapest; nuclear would be. The nuclear costs include the tax paid for waste disposal and the contribution to the fund that pays for plant decommissioning.

Yes those are roughly the fuel+O&M numbers I see. However, comparisons of O&M alone to coal don't help much, since the plant cost for coal at ~http://web.mit.edu/coal/The_Future_of_Coal_Chapters_1-3.pdf") - not that such a comparison is all that useful, as in addition to cost of plant wind rightfully should be weighed with some baseband costs from other sources to cover variability, and some portion of the transmission costs for the necessarily remote locations in the wind belt. I see the 'all-in' cost of wind, if it intends to become 20% of the US power system, at more like 6-8 cents per kilowatt-hour (unsubsidised), more still for offshore installation.

As long as the utility doesn't face opposition from lawsuits and government; nuclear power is quite economical. We have both extremes in the USA for comparison. If you look at California and New York; where the State government actually opposed the power plants; then plants like Diablo Canyon [ CA ] and Shoreham [ NY - bankrupted ] cost way more than they need to.

However, if you look at the Commonwealth Edison system serving Chicago and northern Illinois - the fleet of 7 reactors in the Chicago area provide something like 80% of the system's power which is ona par with France.

Agreed.

Edit: Why not send your comments to Sec. Chu, your former lab director, who seems to have abandoned nuclear power in his new post. Here's an 81 page energy presentation he was pitching in public speeches just before his nomination. It mentions nuclear only in passing, and has no mention at all with regard to building more nuclear.
http://www.lbl.gov/Publications/Director/assets/docs/AAAS_Keynote_B.pdf

 

[Pumblechook]

The nuclear part of EDF is in considerable debt.

No nuclear power has ever really paid its way.

Even American Westinghouse was run by the British Government for a few years.

 

[mheslep]

The nuclear part of EDF is in considerable debt.

No nuclear power has ever really paid its way.

Even American Westinghouse was run by the British Government for a few years.

Do you have a source for that EdF information?

 

[John Creighto]

Dr. Moore also covers the fact that nuclear has about one-fifth to one-tenth the carbon footprint
of wind and solar in terms of the full lifecycle. Neither nuclear, wind, nor solar is truly carbon
emission free when you consider the CO2 emitted in the manufacture of the steel for reactor vessels,
pipes and rebar for nuclear; turbines and towers for wind, and heliostats for solar.

This link would support your claim on solar (at least for photovoltaics) but not for wind:
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/postpn268.pdf

(Not that I'm advocating wind of nuclear)

 

[Pumblechook]

"EDF's debt rose to €24.5 billion at the end of 2008 from €16.3 billion a year earlier."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123442614532776763.html?mod=googlenews_wsj


The new Finnish Olkiluoto station is well over budget and taking a lot longer than planned to bring on-line.

"The Olkiluoto-3 reactor is thus at least 37 months behind schedule after 42 months’ construction, and some 50% over budget"

 

[Morbius]

The nuclear part of EDF is in considerable debt.

No nuclear power has ever really paid its way.

Even American Westinghouse was run by the British Government for a few years.

Pumblechook,

100% WRONG! If nuclear power plants can't pay their own way; then utilities such as
Commonwealth Edison in Chicago would be out of business since it relies on nuclear power
plants for the vast majority of its electricity production.

Yes - EdF has debt - as do ALL utilities - that is how they operate. They borrow the money
to build the plants - and the plant pays for itself during its lifetime. It's like looking at everyone
that has a home mortgage in the USA and saying - "These people are in debt". That doesn't
mean that they are insolvent or bankrupt.

Westinghouse BUILDS reactors - it doesn't operate them. The economics of nuclear power
relies on whether the utility that operates the reactor can make money.

Westinghouse built the majority of the PWRs in the USA from the '60s to '80s. Since then,
there have been no new nuclear power plants built in the USA. Westinghouse essentially
became a nuclear fuel supplier; NOT a reactor manufacturer. As a nuclear fuel supplier,
the downsized company was in the same business as BNFL - British Nuclear Fuel Limited;
which is the British crown-corporation that supplies / reprocesses nuclear fuel. BNFL purchased
the nuclear part of Westinghouse in 1999.

Westinghouse still had a nuclear design component; which was engaged in the design of the next
generation reactors. BNFL / British government were concerned that these efforts would be a net
drain on the company if the new Westinghouse designs were not successful in being accepted.
So BNFL sold Westinghouse to Toshiba and BNFL returned to just nuclear fuel services.

However, the financial condition of a reactor manufacturer that is no longer doing a large business
in building reactors is not a good harbinger of the economics of nuclear power.

The real question is whether nuclear power plants can produce enough electricity such that the sale
of that power at market rates pays for the construction and operation of the plant. The answer to that
question is YES - as the operators of the USA's current fleet of 104 nuclear power plants can attest.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[Morbius]

"EDF's debt rose to €24.5 billion at the end of 2008 from €16.3 billion a year earlier."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123442614532776763.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Pumblechook,

Yes - well that can happen when your government forces you to sell power below market rates.

Quoting your own link above:

PARIS -- State-controlled utility Electricité de France SA posted a sharp drop in 2008 earnings, blaming
French regulations that require it to sell some of its electricity at below-market prices.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[mgb_phys]

"EDF's debt rose to €24.5 billion at the end of 2008 from €16.3 billion a year earlier."

If you can't calculate the profitability of a public owned company then it's debt is even harder to really account for. We have railway lines built a 150years ago which on the governments books are £Bn in debt and brand new NHS hospitals that are somehow built without any government expenditure.

It's probably fair to say that the French aren't 90% nuclear because of a philosophical objection to using imported natural gas.

 

[Pumblechook]

Nonsense. If nuclear was successful in the private sector British Energy, EDF and BNFL would be trading healthily in the private sector. They are NOT.

BE has had massive subsidies.

 

[mgb_phys]

Nonsense. If nuclear was successful in the private sector British Energy, EDF and BNFL would be trading healthily in the private sector.

I suspect the French believe that their nations power supply would be safer in the hands of their government than owned by a foreign hedge fund.

Perhaps if banking was successful in the private sector then Wall St wouldn't need all those bailouts!

 

[Morbius]

Nonsense. If nuclear was successful in the private sector British Energy, EDF and BNFL would be trading healthily in the private sector. They are NOT.

BE has had massive subsidies.

Pumblechook,

EdF was founded as a Government owned corporation for the production of electric power

LONG before the decision to use nuclear power. That's just the way the French decided to

operate their electric system. It is NOT the result of having a non-profitable energy source.

As usual; you have the direction of implication in your argument exactly backwards.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[vanesch]

"EDF's debt rose to €24.5 billion at the end of 2008 from €16.3 billion a year earlier."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123442614532776763.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Eh, yes, but you should read your own source: this debt (meaning, borrowed money for acquisitions) came essentially from EdF taking over foreign operators for which they had to pay money. Nowhere it is said that they are loosing money on their nuclear part (which is a large chunk of what they are, btw). What happened was that their PROFIT fell by 39% in 2008.

 

[Pumblechook]

Talk about living in a dream world.

These operators can't survive in the private sector.

REPEAT.. If they were successful they would be in the private sector and would have been for years.

The Finnish builder/operator is only going ahead on the basis that they get a guaranteed price for their output.

The non-nuclear part of British Energy is profitable. The nuclear part is not. Attempts to privatised BE Nuclear have failed.

BE couldn't even pay rates (local tax) at some of its stations.

"""If nuclear power seems cheap in France, it is because half the costs have been ignored. An accurate accounting of costs, direct and indirect, reveals France's massive nuclear electricity programme as a ruinously expensive folly.

Written with Peter Bunyard, co-editor of The Ecologist. Published in The Ecologist Vol. 11 No. 6, December 1981.""

 

[Andrew Mason]

Nonsense. If nuclear was successful in the private sector British Energy, EDF and BNFL would be trading healthily in the private sector. They are NOT.

BE has had massive subsidies.

Coal is subsidized by the lives and health of coal miners and the people who die prematurely from burning coal and by the damage caused by global climate change. Is that not a form of subsidy in the sense that the coal power companies can make money without having to pay those social and environmental costs?

The fact is that in most countries the capital costs of massive nuclear and hydro-electric projects are beyond the capabilities of private companies. This means that nuclear and hydro projects tend to be done by governments. It does not mean that they require public subsidies to make them economic. There have not been many hydro-electric projects that did not have government funding - but I don't know of any for which the cost of power production does not compare favourably to the cost of coal generated electricity.

To determine whether nuclear and/or hydro compares favourably to the cost of other ways of generating power, you have to look at the total cost of building and operating the plants. The real savings of a nuclear plant is in the fuel. A 1000 MWe coal plant uses about 4 million tons of coal a year - a coal train per day. At even $60 per ton, the cost is $240 million for fuel. There are enormous handling costs as well.

U costs about $90,000 per ton but a 1000 MWe plant uses only about 200 Tons of U per year (about 25 tons of enriched U), for a total cost of less than $20 million. So in fuel, the coal plant will cost $220 million more per year to operate than a nuclear plant. You can pay off a lot of capital over 40 years at $220 million per year.

If one looks at just the economic factors, nuclear compares favourably. If one then factors in the relative environmental and social costs, coal might be the much more expensive - and more heavily subsidized - way to generate power.

AM

 

[mheslep]

Talk about living in a dream world.

These operators can't survive in the private sector.

REPEAT.. If they were successful they would be in the private sector and would have been for years.

The Finnish builder/operator is only going ahead on the basis that they get a guaranteed price for their output.

The non-nuclear part of British Energy is profitable. The nuclear part is not. Attempts to privatised BE Nuclear have failed.

BE couldn't even pay rates (local tax) at some of its stations.

"""If nuclear power seems cheap in France, it is because half the costs have been ignored. An accurate accounting of costs, direct and indirect, reveals France's massive nuclear electricity programme as a ruinously expensive folly.

Written with Peter Bunyard, co-editor of The Ecologist. Published in The Ecologist Vol. 11 No. 6, December 1981.""

As I don't care to see this thread locked, I hope we can get more facts on the historical costs of nuclear power in France - the entire capital and operating costs - not tangents. So far in this thread we don't have any useful facts on French nuclear costs, just assertions. Corporate debt is not that useful as a measure. The Ecologist is essentially an advocacy journal, though if there are references that can be pulled from that article I'd enjoy seeing them.

 

[mheslep]

If one looks at just the economic factors, nuclear compares favourably.

In theory perhaps, doubtful in practice. In any case you have not looked here at the principle economic factors. Plant costs. Insurance. Enrichment.

 

[vanesch]

As I don't care to see this thread locked, I hope we can get more facts on the historical costs of nuclear power in France - the entire capital and operating costs - not tangents. So far in this thread we don't have any useful facts on French nuclear costs, just assertions. Corporate debt is not that useful as a measure. The Ecologist is essentially an advocacy journal, though if there are references that can be pulled from that article I'd enjoy seeing them.

Well, I found this:
http://www.cea.fr/jeunes/themes/l_energie_nucleaire/questions_sur_le_nucleaire

where it is mentioned that the production of nuclear power in France costs 28.4 Euros per MWhr tax included, and this includes applied research, waste recycling, estimated cost for dismantling and final waste storage, according to the CEA, the French nuclear research agency. They refer to a report where this comes from, but they don't give a link and I didn't find it immediately.
Now, of course the CEA will have a rather positive opinion on nuclear power, although they diversified now and do a lot of research also in solar power and in biotechnology for instance. So I don't know how reliable this number is, but at least it is a number.

BTW, EdF is now a private company, quoted on the stock market. France was forced to do so because of European rules specifying that the electricity market should now be a private market. It does have a contract with the French state, and I think that the French state is still an important stock owner, but I don't know the details. This has given rise to a lot of strikes in France, because people didn't want EdF to become private.

 

[vanesch]

In theory perhaps, doubtful in practice. In any case you have not looked here at the principle economic factors. Plant costs. Insurance. Enrichment.

I think the thing that makes most private companies that don't already own a set of nuclear power plants, hesitate to do so, is the fear of red tape, and ultimately the fear of not being able to use their investment fully. For nuclear, you pay upfront, and you get your money through the lifetime of the plant. As there is, in many countries, a political uncertainty about the possibility of using nuclear power (phase outs decided in certain countries for instance) this means that you might have to close down - for political reasons - a plant that didn't come through its lifetime ; or not even be able to start it up. That's too much of a risk for many private companies. If it is a state-owned company, that's less of a problem, because then the state (and hence the people) is responsible for its own decisions.

 

[vanesch]

The non-nuclear part of British Energy is profitable. The nuclear part is not. Attempts to privatised BE Nuclear have failed.

Well, visibly, or EdF has the ambition of taking on all the nuclear losses in Europe, or the above proved to be wrong:

http://www.british-energy.com/

They are now part of EdF.

 

[mheslep]

Well, I found this:
http://www.cea.fr/jeunes/themes/l_energie_nucleaire/questions_sur_le_nucleaire

where it is mentioned that the production of nuclear power in France costs 28.4 Euros per MWhr tax included, and this includes applied research, waste recycling, estimated cost for dismantling and final waste storage, according to the CEA, the French nuclear research agency. They refer to a report where this comes from, but they don't give a link and I didn't find it immediately.
Now, of course the CEA will have a rather positive opinion on nuclear power, although they diversified now and do a lot of research also in solar power and in biotechnology for instance. So I don't know how reliable this number is, but at least it is a number.

BTW, EdF is now a private company, quoted on the stock market. France was forced to do so because of European rules specifying that the electricity market should now be a private market. It does have a contract with the French state, and I think that the French state is still an important stock owner, but I don't know the details. This has given rise to a lot of strikes in France, because people didn't want EdF to become private.

Thanks Vanesch.

The translator gives me:

The electricity produced in France is currently one of the most competitive in Europe. For basic operation, nuclear power, with a production cost of 28.4 euros per megawatt hour TTC, appears more competitive than gas (35 euros / MWh TTC) and coal (32 to 33.7 euros / MWh TTC) . (source : étude publiée fin 2003 par la DGEMP ) (source: 2003 study published by the end DGEMP)

These results include all present and future costs for the nuclear industry, ie research and development, processing of spent fuel, decommissioning of facilities and waste management.

Competitiveness increases if one takes into account the costs of limiting emissions of greenhouse gases which could represent between 1.5 and 15 euros / MWh for gas and coal (depending on the assumptions made on the cost per tonne CO 2).

In addition, the cost of nuclear energy is stable, as little dependent on the price of uranium, while the cost per kWh of gas origin is strongly related to gas price increases which, ultimately, is to be feared, in Due to the strong growth in demand.

I note that the third paragraph does not include insurance and I read elsewhere that the state just assumes that risk in France, i.e. the taxpayers. Given the insurance omission, I'm sceptical that other measures like major evacuation plans were paid for and updated by the nuclear industry, as they in part had to be here in the US.

 

[mheslep]

... This has given rise to a lot of strikes in France, because people didn't want EdF to become private.

They need a reason?

 

[Morbius]

Talk about living in a dream world.

These operators can't survive in the private sector.

REPEAT.. If they were successful they would be in the private sector and would have been for years.

Pumblechook,

In the USA - nuclear power reactors ARE in the private sector.

Also in the USA - the entity that makes material for nuclear weapons is a Government
operation - the Dept. of Energy.

In Britain; they melded the two operations in a single agency - BNFL.

In addition to providing commercial nuclear fuel; BNFL also provides the nuclear weapons
material for British nukes. That part of the operation is ALWAYS a Government operation.

If BNFL were broken into two pieces - a weapons unit owned by the Crown for producing nuclear
weapons material, and a commercial unit for producing reactor fuel - then we could see if this
second one were profitable.

However, because the combined BNFL makes weapons material - it is going to be Government
owned REGARDLESS of whether the commercial part is profitable or not.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[Morbius]

I think the thing that makes most private companies that don't already own a set of nuclear power plants, hesitate to do so, is the fear of red tape, and ultimately the fear of not being able to use their investment fully.

vanesch,

You got it. What power companies today fear most is what happened to one of the last nuclear power
plants to be built in the USA - but never operated.

That is the case of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant. The utility, Long Island Lighting Co or LILCO
borrowed billions to construct the plant. However, after it was built and in the licensing phase, then
New York Governor Mario Cuomo, who was anti-nuclear; appointed the members of the New York
Public Utilities Commission or PUC.

The PUC sets the price a utility can charge. For electricity from Shoreham, the PUC set a price of $0.00

Lilco could NOT CHARGE for the electricity generated by Shoreham. Because of that, there was
no way Shoreham could earn ANY money, and Lilco couldn't pay back its loans and went bankrupt.

THAT is what electric utilities are afraid of - PUC imposed bankruptcy because they built a nuclear plant.

Lilco didn't go bankrupt because nuclear power was inherently uneconomical. They went bankrupt because
the New York PUC MADE it uneconomical by not letting Lilco charge ANY money for Shoreham electricity.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[Xnn]

Warren Buffet recently offered to buy some nuclear plants (for the right price).
However, he has stated that the problem with Nuclear Power plant construction is that they are to big to build. They only come in 3 sizes: XL, XXL and XXXL.

 

[yolaine]

Hi,

Just have a look to that official doc:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-chapter13.pdf

p763 and the chart "13.1.a. RD&D budgets for energy" quite interesting to get a fair idea of the public investment for R&D in nuclear...

So yes, massive billion gov subsidies for nuclear and no, absolutely not the same level for renewable energies!

 

[Morbius]

Warren Buffet recently offered to buy some nuclear plants (for the right price).
However, he has stated that the problem with Nuclear Power plant construction is that they are to big to build. They only come in 3 sizes: XL, XXL and XXXL.

Xnn,

Yes - that's Al Gore's old saw. However, when you have large demands - then you can build large
plants. For example, the Chicago / Northern Illinois area serviced by Commonwealth Edison uses
about 7 reactors. These are the "XXXL" size and you still need 7 of them to provide the power for
Chicago and its suburbs.

So what's the problem?

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Phyicist