Dickie,

Amounts of money and cost increases are really meaningless unless adequate context is provided.

The particular context of interest is the effect these costs have on the price of nuclear generated electricity if it is to be self funding.

Without that, the large numbers are are just that - large numbers.

Sylvia.

Sylvia

"Air-brushing" the facts will not eradicate the documented evidence.

Despite this industry's promise more than 50 years ago of energy "too cheap to meter," America's nuclear power continues to be dependent on taxpayer handouts to survive.

From 1947-1999 the US's nuclear industry was given over $115 billion in direct taxpayer subsidies. Including Price Anderson limitations on nuclear liability, the federal subsidies reach $145.4 billion and rising fast.

To put this in perspective, federal government subsidies for wind and solar totalled $5.7 billion over the same period. The management of radioactive waste and the requirements for reactor decommissioning also require additional funds.

Other aspects of nuclear power, such as the pollution from uranium mining, risks from nuclear weapons proliferation, dangers of reactor accidents, and the legacy of radioactive waste, are further hidden costs.

The high capital costs and long construction times of reactors do in fact, make new reactors prohibitively expensive unless they are heavily subsidized by taxpayers.

The US Energy Policy Act of 2005 contains over $13 billion dollars in new subsidies and tax breaks, as well as other incentives, for the nuclear industry, including:

Reauthorization of the Price-Anderson Act, which limits industry liability in case of a severe accident; the rest of the tab would be picked up by taxpayers – possibly over $500 billion.

More than $1 billion for research and development of new reactor designs and reprocessing technologies.

Authorization of $2 billion in "risk insurance" to pay the industry for delays in construction and operation licensing for 6 new reactors, including delays due to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or litigation.

Authorization of more than $1.25 billion for the construction of a nuclear plant in Idaho.

Tax credits for electricity production, estimated to cost $5.7 billion by 2025.

Unlimited loan guarantees to back up to 80% of the cost of construction in case of default.

Even with these incentives, Standard & Poor recently concluded that such subsidies "may not be enough to mitigate the risks associated with operating issues and high capital costs that could hinder credit quality."

With global electricity demand conservatively projected to double by 2030 indicating an increase of > 1500 GW additional generation. As all renewable energy generation in the world is in the order of 350GW, much of which is Hydro, the chances of reducing greenhouse gas emmission by renewable alone is zero.

Like wise, nuclear generation alone is unlikely to meet the requirements.

As for the costs of nuclear generation and subsidies, they still compare favourably to renewable.

Most reactors today are built in under five years (first concrete to first power), with four years being state of the art and three years being the aim with prefabrication. Several years are required for preliminary approvals before construction.

The major obstacle is the "green" objections which causes cost over runs and delays. As the situation with climate change worsens, and renewables fail to deliver, the public's attitude will change dramatically and the resistance experienced today will crumble.

Your numbers are out a bit, SM. Existing installed capacity is approx. 3700GW, producing about 700TWh per year. *Some* projections may be for demand to double (or add a mere 1500GW) by 2030, but this almost certainly assumes continued neglect for the large potential for profitable efficiency improvements.

To reduce peak electric demand by one kilowatt costs a fraction of the price that it costs to increase supply capacity by the same kilowatt. This holds true for a huge range of appliances and for all generators except for the most modest cogeneration installations. *If* a serious effort were made to improve electric efficiency, *no* capacity expansion would be required.

As things stand of course the 'go for growth' meme holds sway, and I don't know what might be done to dissuade eg. China from its ambition to quadruple its economy (whilst merely doubling energy consumption -- China is serious about efficiency improvements and has a very large potential to achieve them) by 2020. So I do expect capacity to expand somewhat. That doesn't mean Australia has to follow suit, even as we expand exports to China and its competitors.

Oh and by your own logic:

As all nuclear power today amounts to a mere 400GW, the chances of reducing greenhouse emissions using nuclear power alone are zero.

The biggest and cheapest emissions reductions come from doing more with less. Funds -- public and private -- should be directed first and foremost into improved efficiency. But we must retire our coal-fired dinosaurs somehow, and replacing them with nuclear-powered dinosaurs isn't such a wise move.

Intermittent renewable electricity isn't cheap and it has its problems. I, too, doubt that it will provide 1500GW of "base load" capacity by 2030. That doesn't mean it isn't worth doing at all.

Xoddam,

The figures I quoted were power generated not capacity and I don't dispute your figures.

As I said previously in my post, nuclear cannot do it by itself either. This is not an either / or situation.

The biggest savings will come from efficiency increases, and yes they have been considered in the figures I quoted.

In spite of the increased spending on both nuclear and renewables, they are both projected to supply a decreased percentage of power in 2030 as they are out stripped by coal fired generation, mostly based in the non OECD countries.

My preference is for firstly energy efficiency, secondly for renewable energy, and lastly for nuclear.

However, with current projections, any loss of nuclear power generation will not be filled by renewable, but by coal fired generation.

I prefer nuclear to coal not to renewable. Opposition to nuclear is support for coal either directly or indirectly. Waiting for some magic bullet to save us is fanciful bordering on negligent.

Shadow Minister, of course "the chances of reducing greenhouse gas emmission by renewable alone is zero. Like wise, nuclear generation alone is unlikely to meet the requirements". As I've reiterated from the IEA, APPROX. TWO THIRDS of global GHG emissions stem NOT from generating electricity but are from industry, agriculture, transport and deforestation.

Nuclear, even if fast enough, affordable, safe enough (insurable), even if not related to WMDs both directly and indirectly or emitting GHG at every stage other than the fission process, and assuming a (non-existent, even after 60 years) long term waste management solution, CANNOT EVEN ADDRESS 36% OF THE GHG ISSUE.

Sylvia attempts to dismiss the 10 year total energy cost recouping time of a nuclear power reactor due to a significant part pertaining to decommissioning - a crucial (and extremely expensive) aspect to the safety and any longevity of the nuclear industry. You've dug your own hole there, I'm afraid.

http://www.icanw.org