Recent Posts
- Where your gas money goes
- Nuclear power: Cheap but very expensive
- Remember Sad Socket? More on "perfect power"
- A letter to my congressman
- Why not save energy?
- Remembering the first Earth Day
- Heparin lesson: Know your supply chain
- Learning to live with feedstock variability
- An anniversary to think about safety
- Guns vs. butter is now food vs. fuel?
Recent Comments
- Anonymous on Guns vs. butter is now food vs. fuel?
- natalis oviedo on Paper made by wind power
- wisconsin on Solar power shining on in Germany?
- Peter Welander on Chinese pharma plants go un-inspected?
- Kalo on Chinese pharma plants go un-inspected?
Most Commented On
- Chinese pharma plants go un-inspected? (2)
- Guns vs. butter is now food vs. fuel? (1)
- Paper made by wind power (1)
- Skills gap threatens defense industries (1)
- Solar power shining on in Germany? (1)
Archives
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
Blog
Nuclear power: Cheap but very expensive
May 7, 2008
During this time of evaluating energy sources and effects, nuclear power is back in the limelight. An article in today's Chicago Tribune points out that while the cost of producing nuclear power ($1.72/ kW hour) has become even cheaper than coal (not to mention one-third the cost of burning natural gas and one-fifth the cost of burning oil) the cost of building nuclear plants has become clearly the most expensive.
Indeed, over the last year the price of building a nuclear reactor has effectively doubled and is now around $9 billion. Nonetheless, the NRC is currently reviewing nine applications that will involve 15 plants throughout the U.S. The federal government has set aside $18.5 billion in loan guarantees, but given the costs involved, that won't go very far.
Part of our problem nationally is that the last new plant was started in 1977. While it's easy to second guess history, imagine where we might be today if we had continued to build a new plant or two each year since then. While there are many advantages of wind and solar and we should be expanding that capacity, they are intermittent sources and we need the reliability of base-loaded plants to carry us through times when those are not available. I suspect it's largely a matter of will.
Posted by Peter Welander on May 7, 2008 | Comments (0)



