Comments on: Global Nuclear Plant Construction Moves Forward, Except in the U.S. (Politics and market conditions make it tough for a large-scale rival to carbon-based energy) http://www.masterresource.org/2009/11/global-nuclear-plant-construction-moves-forward-except-in-the-u-s/ A free-market energy blog Sat, 11 Feb 2012 20:41:38 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Tom Blees http://www.masterresource.org/2009/11/global-nuclear-plant-construction-moves-forward-except-in-the-u-s/comment-page-1/#comment-9186 Tom Blees Fri, 09 Apr 2010 09:15:08 +0000 http://www.masterresource.org/?p=5826#comment-9186 China is not only building the first AP-1000 reactors but is building them CHEAPLY. The first of a kind plants are being built at the cost of about $1.75 billion/GW, and they say they expect to get that down to a cool billion once they get their mass production supply chain in place. Meanwhile in the USA we have utility companies saying that the exact same design—a US-designed reactor to boot—is going to cost about $5 billion/GW. Why is that? Why can Japan build US-designed ABWRs for $1.4 billion/GW (as they have done) and we have to spend 3X as much in the USA? It's certainly not because Japan's labor is cheaper, or because they have native supplies of building materials, or that they have lax regulations (their NRC is patterned after ours). It's because our whole system in the US is ridiculously broken, with utility companies building in the insecurity of constructions slowdowns/shutdowns, and generally trying to put in enough padding to compensate for a lack of firm government support (things can change drastically with every administration). England recently changed their laws to ban local communities from stopping nuclear power plant projects once they've been approved, a big step in the right direction that, if we emulated them in the USA, could go a long way to bringing costs down. If we don't get our act together on this and the other aspects of the industry that encourage cost inflation, we'll find ourselves buying reactors from the countries that know how to build them for a reasonable price: China, Japan, South Korea (who just got a contract for four reactors from the UAE), even Taiwan. China is not only building the first AP-1000 reactors but is building them CHEAPLY. The first of a kind plants are being built at the cost of about $1.75 billion/GW, and they say they expect to get that down to a cool billion once they get their mass production supply chain in place.

Meanwhile in the USA we have utility companies saying that the exact same design—a US-designed reactor to boot—is going to cost about $5 billion/GW. Why is that? Why can Japan build US-designed ABWRs for $1.4 billion/GW (as they have done) and we have to spend 3X as much in the USA? It’s certainly not because Japan’s labor is cheaper, or because they have native supplies of building materials, or that they have lax regulations (their NRC is patterned after ours).

It’s because our whole system in the US is ridiculously broken, with utility companies building in the insecurity of constructions slowdowns/shutdowns, and generally trying to put in enough padding to compensate for a lack of firm government support (things can change drastically with every administration). England recently changed their laws to ban local communities from stopping nuclear power plant projects once they’ve been approved, a big step in the right direction that, if we emulated them in the USA, could go a long way to bringing costs down.

If we don’t get our act together on this and the other aspects of the industry that encourage cost inflation, we’ll find ourselves buying reactors from the countries that know how to build them for a reasonable price: China, Japan, South Korea (who just got a contract for four reactors from the UAE), even Taiwan.

]]> By: Consumer Energy Alliance http://www.masterresource.org/2009/11/global-nuclear-plant-construction-moves-forward-except-in-the-u-s/comment-page-1/#comment-8215 Consumer Energy Alliance Tue, 16 Mar 2010 19:21:29 +0000 http://www.masterresource.org/?p=5826#comment-8215 Alternatives like nuclear, which generate significant jobs, taxes and direct as well as secondary spending will strengthen the economies of communities and states. We need significant amount of additional clean and affordable electricity to meet the demand of a growing economy, and nuclear can play a very significant role to acheive this objective Alternatives like nuclear, which generate significant jobs, taxes and direct as well as secondary spending will strengthen the economies of communities and states. We need significant amount of additional clean and affordable electricity to meet the demand of a growing economy, and nuclear can play a very significant role to acheive this objective

]]> By: Rod Adams http://www.masterresource.org/2009/11/global-nuclear-plant-construction-moves-forward-except-in-the-u-s/comment-page-1/#comment-3421 Rod Adams Sun, 29 Nov 2009 09:49:13 +0000 http://www.masterresource.org/?p=5826#comment-3421 Jon - one of the reasons that Russia is interested in building new nuclear power plants at home is that it would prefer to free up more gas to sell to Europe. It has some excellent marketing people, including the man who originally negotiated the German nuclear phase out - Gerhard Schroder. If Germany had gone through with its plans to shut down its 17 large nuclear power plants, that would have represented a potential gas market of approximately 5 billion cubic feet (170 million cubic meters) per day. In the not too distant past, the selling price for natural gas in Germany was $300 per thousand cubic meters, at that price the natural gas replacement for nuclear power would be a market worth more than $50 million PER DAY! Funny how much money the US natural gas industry is currently spending to convince lawmakers that gas is newly abundant and that "the future is powered by natural gas". (I work in Washington and read the buses as they go by.) Rod Adams Publisher, Atomic Insights Host and producer, The Atomic Show Jon – one of the reasons that Russia is interested in building new nuclear power plants at home is that it would prefer to free up more gas to sell to Europe. It has some excellent marketing people, including the man who originally negotiated the German nuclear phase out – Gerhard Schroder. If Germany had gone through with its plans to shut down its 17 large nuclear power plants, that would have represented a potential gas market of approximately 5 billion cubic feet (170 million cubic meters) per day. In the not too distant past, the selling price for natural gas in Germany was $300 per thousand cubic meters, at that price the natural gas replacement for nuclear power would be a market worth more than $50 million PER DAY!

Funny how much money the US natural gas industry is currently spending to convince lawmakers that gas is newly abundant and that “the future is powered by natural gas”. (I work in Washington and read the buses as they go by.)

Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights
Host and producer, The Atomic Show

]]> By: UNRR http://www.masterresource.org/2009/11/global-nuclear-plant-construction-moves-forward-except-in-the-u-s/comment-page-1/#comment-3398 UNRR Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:25:38 +0000 http://www.masterresource.org/?p=5826#comment-3398 This post has been linked for the HOT5 Daily 11/25/2009, at <a href="http://unreligiousright.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">The Unreligious Right</a> This post has been linked for the HOT5 Daily 11/25/2009, at The Unreligious Right

]]> By: Jon Boone http://www.masterresource.org/2009/11/global-nuclear-plant-construction-moves-forward-except-in-the-u-s/comment-page-1/#comment-3394 Jon Boone Wed, 25 Nov 2009 02:50:28 +0000 http://www.masterresource.org/?p=5826#comment-3394 A timely article and an excellent comment. I was particularly glad to see the chart showing how committed Russia is to a nuclear future, for I've been intrigued with that nation's recent energy policy. Putin has been pushing nuclear in his country for some time while quietly cheerleading for "renewables" in western Europe, knowing he can increase his energy stranglehold in that part of world, since western European countries would then be even more dependent on Russian natural gas. A timely article and an excellent comment. I was particularly glad to see the chart showing how committed Russia is to a nuclear future, for I’ve been intrigued with that nation’s recent energy policy. Putin has been pushing nuclear in his country for some time while quietly cheerleading for “renewables” in western Europe, knowing he can increase his energy stranglehold in that part of world, since western European countries would then be even more dependent on Russian natural gas.

]]> By: Charles Battig http://www.masterresource.org/2009/11/global-nuclear-plant-construction-moves-forward-except-in-the-u-s/comment-page-1/#comment-3390 Charles Battig Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:40:33 +0000 http://www.masterresource.org/?p=5826#comment-3390 As China goes forward with nuclear power, the U.S. fabricates, not nuclear plants, but reasons not to go forward. I had written the following article commenting on this disparity. ICECAP in the NewsNov 23, 2009 Green Job Benefits - for China By Charles Battig The October 30, 2009 WSJ edition provides confirmation of the job generating potential of the clean energy revolution so often mentioned by President Obama. Rebecca Smith’s article reports on the new green jobs resulting from the 36,000 acre wind farm in Texas. Unfortunately the jobs are being created in China; I thought that the President was talking about U.S. jobs. Federal tax credits and millions of dollars of federal funding will be sought to create 2,800 jobs. Great, except that the article notes that the U.S. share of those green jobs would be all of 15%---420 jobs. The other 85% are created in China! The managing partner of the private equity firm behind this project is quoted as calling this a “win-win for everyone.” I say not quite everyone. It is presumably a win for his equity firm and a win for the Chinese turbine manufacturer. The loser in this game would be the U.S. taxpayer, forced to front the costs of this project and pay to ship jobs overseas. Wind power is touted as free, clean energy. Shrewd investors and manufacturers are happy to fulfill this fantasy with taxpayer money. The reported experiences of wind power in Denmark, Germany, and Spain note no closing of coal fired power plants as a result of wind power coming on line. Russian natural gas becomes the alternate back up power source when the wind fails. Another report in the same WSJ details the Chinese march forward with nuclear powered plants, with plans to have as many as 100 on line in twenty years, up from 11 today. Here in the U.S., nuclear power continues to be hamstrung by environmental groups such as the Sierra Club, and by onerous permitting obstacles. The world’s first AP1000 third generation reactor, pioneered by U.S. Westinghouse, is to be located , not in the U.S., but in China. China is also reported to be the prime manufacturing site for the solar panels used in Germany. See larger image here. China has seen the future and it sees that it is jobs and plentiful energy. This is something to remember here as the U.S. Federal energy policy is intent to make energy more expensive via Cap/Tax and Trade legislation. China is happy to fulfill our clean energy fantasies, take our green jobs, while building a new coal power plant each week, and building next-generation nuclear power plants. Charles Battig, M.S., M.D. President, Piedmont Chapter Virginia Scientists and Engineers for Energy and Environment Charlottesville, VA As China goes forward with nuclear power, the U.S. fabricates, not nuclear plants, but reasons not to go forward. I had written the following article commenting on this disparity.

ICECAP in the NewsNov 23, 2009
Green Job Benefits – for China By Charles Battig

The October 30, 2009 WSJ edition provides confirmation of the job generating potential of the clean energy revolution so often mentioned by President Obama. Rebecca Smith’s article reports on the new green jobs resulting from the 36,000 acre wind farm in Texas. Unfortunately the jobs are being created in China; I thought that the President was talking about U.S. jobs.

Federal tax credits and millions of dollars of federal funding will be sought to create 2,800 jobs. Great, except that the article notes that the U.S. share of those green jobs would be all of 15%—420 jobs. The other 85% are created in China! The managing partner of the private equity firm behind this project is quoted as calling this a “win-win for everyone.” I say not quite everyone. It is presumably a win for his equity firm and a win for the Chinese turbine manufacturer. The loser in this game would be the U.S. taxpayer, forced to front the costs of this project and pay to ship jobs overseas. Wind power is touted as free, clean energy. Shrewd investors and manufacturers are happy to fulfill this fantasy with taxpayer money. The reported experiences of wind power in Denmark, Germany, and Spain note no closing of coal fired power plants as a result of wind power coming on line. Russian natural gas becomes the alternate back up power source when the wind fails.

Another report in the same WSJ details the Chinese march forward with nuclear powered plants, with plans to have as many as 100 on line in twenty years, up from 11 today. Here in the U.S., nuclear power continues to be hamstrung by environmental groups such as the Sierra Club, and by onerous permitting obstacles. The world’s first AP1000 third generation reactor, pioneered by U.S. Westinghouse, is to be located , not in the U.S., but in China. China is also reported to be the prime manufacturing site for the solar panels used in Germany.

See larger image here.

China has seen the future and it sees that it is jobs and plentiful energy. This is something to remember here as the U.S. Federal energy policy is intent to make energy more expensive via Cap/Tax and Trade legislation. China is happy to fulfill our clean energy fantasies, take our green jobs, while building a new coal power plant each week, and building next-generation nuclear power plants.

Charles Battig, M.S., M.D.
President, Piedmont Chapter
Virginia Scientists and Engineers for Energy and Environment
Charlottesville, VA

]]>