For those of you concerned about nuclear safety and waste products there is a much better alternative. Thorium based (rather than uranium based) nuclear power. This technology was demonstrate in the 50's and 60's but was abandoned because it was much harder to produce weapons grade material (compared to uranium). The military considerations favored the uranium fuel cycle.

More specifically LFTR (liquid fluoride thorium reactors) compared to uranium reactors burn fuel 100x more efficiently without reprocessing, result in ~100x less waste and are inherently safer and should cost less to build.

In addition, since LFTR is a high temp low pressure process it can use water or air cooling. Thus Ut/Nv etc, where water is scarce, could replace it's coal fired plants with low cost, clean thorium power plants. Much more cost effective and reliable than the wind and solar plants that California is building. (fyi, California's electricity currently costs 2x Utah's and they are on a path to keep it that way.)

Uranium LWR : Thorium LFTR

Fuel Reserves (relative) __________________ 1 : 100 (1000s yrs)
Fuel Mining Waste Volume (relative) ____ 1000 : 1
Fuel Burning Efficiency _______________ ~1% : >95%
Radioactive Waste Volume (relative) ______ 40 : 1
Radioactive Waste Isolation Period __10000yrs : 80% 10yrs, 20% 300yrs

Plant Cost (relative) _____________________ 1 : <1
Plant Thermal Efficiency _____________ ~33% : ~50%
Cooling Requirements _______________ Water : Water or Air
Plant Safety _______________________ Good : Very Good
Weapons Grade Material Production ____ Yes : No(very hard)
Desalination with Waste Heat____________No : Yes
Burn Existing Nuclear Waste ___________ No : Yes
Development Status _______ Commercial Now : Demonstrated

for more info see

http://www.energyfromthorium.com/

http://www.energyfromthorium.com/ppt/tho...

charlesH (BS Physics)
Orem, Utah

mschaffer,

I believe nuclear achieves better than 90% uptime which my numbers assumed.

Yes I know Amory Lovins doesn't like nuclear. Takes money from coal clients to trash nuclear I understand. Same old story for 20 yrs. Fortunately most of the world doesn't believe him.

Nuclear has a proven track record. Currently the lowest cost most reliable electrical power in the grid.

Still I understand some are concerned about nuclear safety, waste etc. That's why I strongly support LFTR (liquid fluoride thorium reactor) development. Makes a good technology much much better.

Check out:

http://www.energyfromthorium.com/

Socrates, you ask:

"Why argue with the inevitable? Unless a person owns stock in these environmentally damaging companies (coal, nukes, gas, etc.) and doesn't grok our role as stewards of the planet, I don't understand why there is so much resistance to renewable energy."

Because it costs alot more and it is not 24/7. We don't want our utility bills to double or triple and we don't want our power to go off when the sun goes down or the wind doesn't blow.

I have nothing against solar. When solar is cost effective, it will be added to my home to offset AC. For base load utility power I prefer nuclear. In particular green nuclear (see below).

For those of you concerned about nuclear safety and waste products there is a much better alternative. Thorium based (rather than uranium based) nuclear power. This technology was demonstrate in the 50's and 60's but was abandoned because it was much harder to produce weapons grade plutonium (compared to uranium reactors). The military considerations favored the uranium fuel cycle.

More specifically LFTR (liquid fluoride thorium reactors) compared to uranium reactors burn fuel 100x more efficiently without reprocessing, result in ~100x less waste and are inherently safer and should cost less to build.

In addition, since LFTR is a high temp low pressure process it can use water or air cooling. Thus Ut/Nv etc, where water is scarce, could replace it's coal fired plants with low cost, clean thorium power plants. Much more cost effective and reliable than the wind and solar plants that California is building. (fyi, California's electricity currently costs 2x Utah's and they are on a path to keep it that way.)

Uranium LWR : Thorium LFTR

Fuel Reserves (relative) __________________ 1 : 100 (1000s yrs)
Fuel Mining Waste Volume (relative) ____ 1000 : 1
Fuel Burning Efficiency _______________ ~1% : >95%
Radioactive Waste Volume (relative) ______ 40 : 1
Radioactive Waste Isolation Period __10000yrs : 80% 10yrs, 20% 300yrs

Plant Cost (relative) _____________________ 1 : <1
Plant Thermal Efficiency _____________ ~33% : ~50%
Cooling Requirements _______________ Water : Water or Air
Plant Safety _______________________ Good : Very Good
Weapons Grade Material Production ____ Yes : No(very hard)
Desalination with Waste Heat____________No : Yes
Burn Existing Nuclear Waste ___________ No : Yes
Development Status _______ Commercial Now : Demonstrated

for more info see

http://www.energyfromthorium.com/

http://www.energyfromthorium.com/ppt/tho...

charlesH (BS Physics)
Orem, Utah

Socrates,

Your analysis fails to account for the opportunity cost (or borrowing cost) of your $55,000. If I assume 5% then 0.05 * $55000 = $2750/yr. Divide $2750 / 11000 kwhr = $0.25 which must be added to your $0.17 or $0.42 in year one declining to $0.17 in year 30.

If I do the same calculation as you (don't include interest cost) for a nuclear reactor I get.

$8B/(1.6GW * 8000 hrs * 60yrs) = $0.01 / kwhr. Ridiculous right? You have to include interest costs!

Including interest
5% x $8B = $400M/yr
$400M/(1.6GW * 8000 hrs) = $0.03 / kwhr.

Now we need to add fuel, operating and maintenance of 2cents we get in the first year $0.06 and in year 60 $0.03.

****** bottom line

Nuclear $0.06 going to $0.03
PV $0.42 going to $0.17

The above is why utilities only build solar if there is a state mandate. They know they can pass the higher cost on to the rate payer saying "the state made us do it".

Now it isn't quite this bad for PV since for the homeowner the alternative is retail cost which in CA can be $0.20 or higher. (I figure I need PV to reach $1-2/w here in Utah before it makes sense (installing myself)). And you correctly point out that PV is best when AC load is highest. No storage is necessary for PV to be useful.

Mikeg,

Of course the sun is "shinning" more than 25% of the day but it's not shinning at full power. For example, in the case of non tracking PV one only gets almost max power when the sun is almost directly overhead (e.g. 10am to 2pm). From 8-10 and 2-4 power output is ~50% of the max power. 6-8 and 4-6 almost nothing. Before 6am and after 6pm, nothing. (yearly averages)

What is Nevada waiting for?

Solar is great in the desert southwest except it costs a lot and is only available during the day (25% of the time).

Mr. Comarow shows a complete lack of understanding regarding PV (solar cell) economics when he says:

"Now the cost of solar electric production has come down by a factor of about 10 and increasing production promises to do for solar cells what it did for laptop computers. So what are we waiting for?"

The economics of laptop computers is driven by gates per units area which has doubled every 2-3yrs for the last 30yrs. PV is simply unit area. A huge difference.

PV now costs $4-5/watt.
see http://www.solarbuzz.com/
That works out to about 30c per kwhr compared to what Nevada users now pay, about 10c per kwhr. And of course PV only works during the day.

Concentrated solar power (CSP, using mirrors) capital costs are similar to nuclear. So why not go with CSP? Well CSP is only available 25% of the day. It might work to power AC but not very good for your other electrical needs. CSP costs the same as nuclear to build but you only get 1/4 the electricity.

So I say go for it Nevada. Show the rest of us how its done.

Of course more drilling will not lower prices much if at all and certainly not near term. Oil prices are set on a world wide basis and no matter how much we drilled it would affect the WW supply situation enough to lower prices.

What it will do is reduce the money we are sending overseas for foreign oil. It will create jobs here in the US which the last time I checked was supposed to be important to democrats.

The only problem with alternative forms of energy (e.g. wind/solar) is that they cost a lot more and are not 24/7. So if you want your utility bills sky rocket like gas and you don't mind not having power when you need it most then build wind and solar.

For a fraction of the cost of Yucca we could have developed liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR)power plants. We still can! Variations of the LFTR can burn up uranium waste. No need to store it for 200,000 yrs.

For those of you concerned about nuclear safety and waste products there is a much better alternative. Thorium based (rather than uranium based) nuclear power. This technology was demonstrate in the 50's and 60's but was abandoned because it was much harder to produce weapons grade material (compared to uranium). The military considerations favored the uranium fuel cycle.

More specifically LFTR (liquid fluoride thorium reactors) compared to uranium reactors burn fuel 100x more efficiently without reprocessing, result in ~100x less waste and are inherently safer and should cost less to build.

In addition, since LFTR is a high temp low pressure process it can use water or air cooling. Thus Ut/Nv etc, where water is scarce, could replace it's coal fired plants with low cost, clean thorium power plants. Much more cost effective and reliable than the wind and solar plants that California is building. (fyi, California's electricity currently costs 2x Utah's and they are on a path to keep it that way.)

Comparison: Uranium vs Thorium Based Nuclear Power

Uranium LWR : Thorium LFTR

Fuel Reserves (relative) __________________ 1 : 100
Fuel Mining Waste Volume (relative) ____ 1000 : 1
Fuel Burning Efficiency _______________ ~1% : >95%
Radioactive Waste Volume (relative) ______ 40 : 1
Radioactive Waste Isolation Period __10000yrs : 80% 10yrs, 20% 300yrs

Plant Cost (relative) _____________________ 1 : <1
Plant Thermal Efficiency _____________ ~33% : ~50%
Cooling Requirements _______________ Water : Water or Air
Plant Safety _______________________ Good : Very Good
Weapons Grade Material Production ____ Yes : No(very hard)
Burn Existing Nuclear Waste ___________ No : Yes
Development Status _______ Commercial Now : Demonstrated

for more info see

www.energyfromthorium.com/

www.energyfromthorium.com/ppt/thoriumVsU...

charlesH (BS Physics)
Orem, Utah

There is a much better way than storage for 200,000 yrs. The gov should develop liquid fluoride thorium reactors (LFTR) and burn up the waste. For a fraction of the cost of Yucca we could have had LFTR already.

Thorium based (rather than uranium based) nuclear power was demonstrate in the 50's and 60's but was abandoned because it was much harder to produce weapons grade material (compared to uranium). The military considerations favored the uranium fuel cycle.

thorium LFTR compared to uranium reactors:

have 100x more known fuel reserves (enough to power the USA for 1000s of yrs)
burn fuel 100x more efficiently without reprocessing
1000x less mining waste
~100x less radio active waste volume and waste needs storage for 10-300yrs not 10000yrs
no weapons grade material
are inherently safer (low pressure, can't explode)
more efficient (high temp)
should cost less (low pressure)
can be air cooled (don't need water)
can BURN UP URANIUM WASTE! no Yucca!

Sound to good to be true?

for more info see

www.energyfromthorium.com/

www.energyfromthorium.com/ppt/thoriumVsU...

charlesH (BS Physics)
Orem, Utah

If Utah build thorium nuclear reactors we could burn up all the uranium waste and Yucca wouldn't be needed.

For those of you concerned about nuclear safety and waste products there is a much better alternative. Thorium based (rather than uranium based) nuclear power. This technology was demonstrate in the 50's and 60's but was abandoned because it was much harder to produce weapons grade material (compared to uranium). The military considerations favored the uranium fuel cycle.

More specifically LFTR (liquid fluoride thorium reactors) compared to uranium reactors burn fuel 100x more efficiently without reprocessing, result in ~100x less waste and are inherently safer and should cost less to build.

In addition, since LFTR is a high temp low pressure process it can use water or air cooling. Thus Ut/Nv etc, where water is scarce, could replace it's coal fired plants with low cost, clean thorium power plants. Much more cost effective and reliable than the wind and solar plants that California is building. (fyi, California's electricity currently costs 2x Utah's and they are on a path to keep it that way.)

Comparison: Uranium vs Thorium Based Nuclear Power

Uranium LWR : Thorium LFTR

Fuel Reserves (relative) __________________ 1 : 100
Fuel Mining Waste Volume (relative) ____ 1000 : 1
Fuel Burning Efficiency _______________ ~1% : >95%
Radioactive Waste Volume (relative) ______ 40 : 1
Radioactive Waste Isolation Period __10000yrs : 80% 10yrs, 20% 300yrs

Plant Cost (relative) _____________________ 1 : <1
Plant Thermal Efficiency _____________ ~33% : ~50%
Cooling Requirements _______________ Water : Water or Air
Plant Safety _______________________ Good : Very Good
Weapons Grade Material Production ____ Yes : No(very hard)
Burn Existing Nuclear Waste ___________ No : Yes
Development Status _______ Commercial Now : Demonstrated

for more info see

www.energyfromthorium.com/

www.energyfromthorium.com/ppt/thoriumVsU...

charlesH (BS Physics)
Orem, Utah