Nuclear energy

There may be hope for ratepayers yet:

The public advocate for North Carolina utilities customers has reversed position and will oppose — at least for now — any proposal to make it easier for utilities to recover some costs for nuclear plant construction before plants are built.

Aside from the fact that nuke plant construction costs are prohibitive on an astronomic scale, our current power surplus is so large Duke Energy is desperately recruiting power-gobbling data centers to suck up that extra juice. Our baseload is just fine, thank you very much.

But definitely not forgotten:

“They were going to introduce (the legislation) this week,” Duke Energy Chief Executive Jim Rogers told the N.C. Utilities Commission on Tuesday afternoon. “The decision was made that this would not be the best week to do it, but it will be done before the end of the session.”

Just to be clear, the dangers associated with nuke plants is really a side issue, although it may seem like a big issue right now. The focus should remain on ratepayers being forced to pay dearly for a project that may never be completed, and that banks wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole.

A few cracks can make a world of difference:

GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy said it had discovered extensive cracking and "material distortion," and likely would recommend that the boiling water reactors using its Marathon control rod blades replace them more frequently than they had been told to previously.

"The design life if not revised, could result in significant control blade cracking and could, if not corrected, create a substantial safety hazard and is considered a reportable condition," the company said in its report to the NRC.

And yes, they're kind of important. That "material distortion" can inhibit full insertion, which is, you know, not good. But when I saw this:

Shouldering the financial burden for new nuke plants:

Due to controversial state legislation in 2007, the utilities can already force consumers to pre-pay for new plants. But Duke and Progress executives have signaled to key lawmakers and reporters that they still cannot attempt nuclear projects without additional legislation. It appears they want an automatic pass-through of rate increases without having to justify them in traditional legal proceedings before the state Utilities Commission.

Note to the new leadership in the GA: After all your rhetoric about easing the tax burden on citizens, if you help the utilities pick billions out of our pockets to finance something no bank would touch with a ten foot pole, you can kiss that majority goodbye.

Rising water temperatures force shutdowns:

The Tennessee Valley Authority is losing tens of millions of dollars in power generation at its largest nuclear plant to avoid overheating the Tennessee River in Alabama.

Unless the summer cools down, TVA could lose more, pushing up fuel costs and consumer electric bills even after seven straight monthly increases.

I have a feeling these Summer shutdowns will only get worse in the years to come.

They may be relatively clean, but are they sustainable?

In addition to the high cost and risks, new reactors create another problem, one that is rarely mentioned: they put enormous pressure on water resources. Nuclear reactors require huge amounts of cooling water to operate; without adequate water, they cannot produce electricity.

Scientists say that warmer temperatures from climate change will mean a less dependable supply of water. This should be of special concern to residents of the southeastern United States, which is seeing its energy demand grow - and its water resources become increasingly stressed.

With all the attention on nuclear energy recently, I decided to do a some research and I ran across this great paper on the costs associated with nuclear power. I warn you it's rather long, so I'll give you a short run down on the facts.

Lets start with the basic capital costs, they estimate that a new nuclear facility will cost somewhere between $8 and $12 billion. Considering two thirds of the world's nuclear plants still being constructed are delayed, we can predict that the total cost will be closer to $12 billion. So nuclear power will most likely cost about 17 to 22 cents/kWh, compare that to wind power which costs around 4 to 9 cents/kWh.

In an effort to give us all a break from the "much wailing and gnashing of teeth" associated with pending Federal health care legislation, I decided to work through a subject that has been on my mind recently: That being the much needed, and hopefully soon mandated, drastic reduction of carbon emissions worldwide. As we all know, weaning ourselves from the combustion of coal is not going to be easy or cheap, but the puzzle is coming together, piece by piece.

One of the key issues surrounding the nuclear energy debate is the proper disposition of spent fuel rods. There are numerous concerns that encompass this issue, from radioactive contamination to nuclear proliferation fears, and about the only consensus that experts can agree on is the sheer complexity of the problem.

According to the Charlotte Observer, a group of ostensible environmentalists will hold an expensive fundraiser for Barack Obama in their posh home in the Myers Park neighborhood of Charlotte. I quote:

The invitation-only fundraisers will be at the Bonwood Drive home of environmental activists Bob Perkowitz and Lisa Renstrom. A "general reception" costs $1,000 a person. A "host reception" costs $2,300.

Perhaps these ostensible environmentalists should research Obama's record on the environment before raising money for his campaign. Exelon, a nuclear energy giant in Illinois, is Obama's sixth largest donor. In fact, Exelon employees have donated over $269,100 to his federal campaigns and over $194,750 in 2008.