[ RadSafe ] cost per kilowatt ratio

[Jeff Terry]

Mr. Salsman,

I don't really care about your political leanings, they don't matter  
at all within the context of this discussion.

Currently, hydroelectric power is responsible for about 15% of our  
electricity generation. There is a nice figure that you can look at  
here: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/northamerica/fig14.jpg

The state of California has concluded that it is cheaper to remove  
dams than to retrofit them for fish preservation, see the following:  
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/12/01/18334563.php

Because of the impact of dams on the salmon population in the western  
U. S., I do not believe that you will see any more dams built in the  
U. S. Given that energy demand is increasing, I don't see  
hydroelectric power ever reaching your 25% of electric power  
generation. If it does the costs for hydroelectric generation will  
certainly increase dramatically as measures will need to be taken to  
prevent the decimation of the salmon industry.

Now if you look at the figure of our current energy supply above, you  
will see that we will need to replace at least 65% of our our oil,  
gas, coal supply which will run out eventually even if you don't take  
into account any effect of global warming. I don't want to rehash  
that debate here again.

You will also see that there is no category for solar, wind,  
geothermal, or tidal in that plot. They are all combined into that 2%  
other category. From a practicality standpoint, let's consider the  
next 30 years and assume that energy demand won't increase (bad  
assumption I know). Let's limit our decrease in fossil fuel usage to  
50% of our total supply.

It appears to me that it is more likely that nuclear power usage  
could about double to 33% of our total from its current 18% than wind/ 
solar/geothermal/tidal use will increase by more than 650 to fill  
this role.

Since electricity demand will only increase, all of these forms of  
power generation nuclear, wind, solar, geothermal, etc. will also  
have to increase. But all forms of power generation have their  
difficulties including wind. Wind turbines have been responsible for  
the deaths of numerous endangered bird species in California and bat  
kills in the eastern U. S. There are no panaceas, entropy is always  
increasing, and no method of producing power will ever be complete safe.

You cannot exclude the increased use of nuclear energy over the next  
30 years to help solve our increased energy demand and the need to  
cut back on the use of fossil fuels.

Jeff


On Feb 10, 2007, at 2:46 AM, James Salsman wrote:

> What is the ratio between the cost of a 75% wind, 25% hydroelectric
> (including pumped hydro storage) electricity grid, and one with 100%
> nuclear power?
>
> According to my reasoning, if you include waste disposal costs,
> nuclear is much more than three times as expensive.  If you do not
> include waste disposal, and even grant Price-Anderson indemnification
> and assume the total cost to the government for cleanup is zero (which
> is absurd) then it is still more than twice of expensive, according to
> the market at present.  There is little evidence that the cost of
> nuclear energy will fall, and a lot of evidence that the cost of wind
> power will continue to fall, and a lot of evidence that hydroelectric
> and pumped hydro storage will remain about the same.
>
> However, I am in favor of nuclear power in outer space.  I believe
> that is the only correct place for it, and that it is necessary there.
> I am a moderate liberal conservationist, a fiscal conservative,
> pro-choice, pro-single payer health care, anti-Republican Party, and
> in favor of instant runoff voting and choice voting on optical scan
> ballots.  I am also an agnostic quaker, but not superstitious to the
> extent possible.  I also believe that low-hanging fruit is important.
> I am also in favor of the use of nuclear medicine.  On that note, I
> would remind readers that the uranyl ion was used to stain DNA before
> the structure of DNA was even known.  It should not come as a surprise
> to learn that it affects chromosomes and causes birth defects.  What
> should come as a surprise is how often so-called health professionals
> ignore and suppress that fact.
>
> Sincerely,
> James Salsman
> _______________________________________________

>