There is an interview of Amory Lovins on the Charlie Rose PBS show that can be seen here:
http://video.google.com/
videopla...577556800822039
Charlie threw him a lot of softballs in my opinion. Amory and a lot of other folks who support the idea of getting off oil seem to completely ignore the importance of oil ancillaries - chemicals, jet fuel, plastics and so on. I think it would take many more years of development to figure out how biofuels could replace those vital aspects of oil. If they could, I would expect the price of everything to rise in cost as a result.
At 9:30 into the interview, Amory takes a dig on nuclear. He has a great talent in taking "facts" and crafting them into a case. While he states that "micropower" added 4x more capacity than nuclear [during '05]. While I don't know what additional nuclear capacity was added during '05, even if it was 800MW, that wouldn't be too hard for wind, solar etc. to beat. So that is a nonsense point to sell his case.
I often see arguments against fission based on the expense. Expensive is not the argument, being economical is! In some cases, I do believe that efficiency might win economically compared to certain new power proposals. For example, wide scale deployment of LED street lamps might be more cost effective than new wind power, though that particular analysis has only been touched upon from what I've been able to research.
My concern is that Lovins is playing on people's fear of nuclear energy and telling them a story they like to hear but is in no way accurate or realistic. Fortunately, not everyone believes him.
Rod,
I came across another of these ideological loops Lovins et. al. go through all the time.
According to the heatlth physics society, the radioactive exposure of the population is to 55% caused by Radon. Only to 0.1% by the nuclear fuel cycle.
The radon exposure happens mostly in buildings made of concrete, stone, or brick and can of course be minimized by good ventilation.
Lovins's push to "efficiency improvements" also means sealing buildings much more tightly to minimize thermal losses. In many areas of Europe, especially Germany, the building codes are already so strict that buildings are essentially sealed. This can easily double the Radon exposure as this noble gas cannot escape from the building inside anymore.
So, Lovin's proposed policy of greatly increased energy efficiency exposes the average population to hundreds of times greater doses of radioacivity than even a 100% nuclear energy economy ever could.
KLA:
Sealed buildings with inadequately sized HVAC units have caused a lot of more immediate health problems than those that MIGHT be caused at some point in the future by radon.
Sick buildings are a real hazard, especially for those of us who have allergies or are sensitive to mold and trace chemicals.
I attribute many sick buildings to the "conservation first" mantra preached by Lovins and his disciples.
Incrediable you guys are still spurring the same BS for the last 50 years. Still NE is the most expensive w/o even considering the massive waste problem ( try researching france's waste problems).Normandy?? Champain?? Like a forever 13 year year old taking the family out in a Nascar race.Why the economist on Wall Street dont find you crediable. The only reason you guys are still mouthing is their is a grand sum of money to be made from the public if you can weasle it out by deceit.
"Like a forever 13 year year old taking the family out in a Nascar race."
Would someone do mo the favor of explaining what this odd simile is even supposed to mean?
Gordon:
The "waste problem" is one of the biggest advantages that nuclear fission power has compared to fossil fuel, its primary competition. Used nuclear fuel mass is measured in thousands of tons per year (small single digits of thousands, by the way) while deadly fossil fuel waste is measured in millions of tons per day.
No one has ever been hurt by exposure to nuclear fission byproducts handled in routine ways - tens of thousands of people die each year from exposure to the byproducts of burning coal, oil and natural gas.
The reason for the advantage is that nuclear fission waste is small enough to be fully contained and stored away without major increases in costs. In contrast, you HAVE to dispose of fossil fuel waste by pumping it out into our common environment.
The choice is very clear to me. I like nuclear power and would gladly live right next door to a small facility. In fact, I have long range visions of building plants small enough to fit into home basements so the waste heat can be fully used.
Nuclear has a low life cycle energy cost especially for plants with extended lives of 60-80 years. I will agree with the Economist (and the late Alvin Weinberg) that nuclear power is more "economically lumpy" than other sources (i.e., 60% of the life cycle cost is capital). My reading is that the financial folks do not like those kinds of investments.
My favorite ploy by Lovins is his placing natural gas alongside solar and wind then calling it all "renewable" or micropower. Last I heard, natural gas is a fossil fuel. And it's more finite than uranium or thorium. 
Gordon, let's call the BS about your assertion that nuclear is the most expensive energy.
http://www.spiegel.de/
wirtschaft...,574799,00.html
This is an article that describes how Spain is curbing the subsidies for solar, because they can't afford it anymore. The solar plant in the picture is fairly new, in southern Spain, and cost 68 Million Euros. It's described (as usual) to be able to supply 5000 Households. Googling revealed, that its output is 3.5 MW peak. Which means its cost was 19,000 Euros/kW peak. Peak solar output is per standard specified at 1000W/m^2 solar insolation. The average solar insolation in southern spain is 200W/m^2 (averaged over 24/7/365). So this 3.5 MWpeak plant can really only deliver as much energy as a 0.7 MW plant that can run 24/7. So the equivalent cost per kW, when based on the usable energy produced, is 85,000 Euros/kW, or $123,000 per kW installed.
The most expensive nuclear plant I know of is about $7000 per kW installed. If you now still believe nuclear is the most expensive energy generation method, then I have a bridge to sell you.
That's prettry good. Current estimates for a nuclear reator plant run from 5-13 billion $. When they go down ( and all plants do) they take weeks to get back near full power. Also once there is a power outage ( 99% in grid caused)this cause all interconnected nukes to shut down. Hmmm quite a problem. Since the latest history of new plants comes from the Finish plant ( French built) and the Indian plants, we can easily see the massive time overruns and the massive cost overruns ( repeat story??).
Since France is expected to be getting a large % of the new reators business in the US, we can assume from past history a repeat of cost and time overuns.
Fission has been on the horizon so long I will be long gone before a cost efficient tech./ safe is achieved, if ever. However some limited research is reasonable.
On the other hand increased eficiency cost practically nothing compared to NE. Products off the shelf today. All that energy used for heating in industry could easily be cogenerating eletricity. Small hyro / cogen. decenralizes our grid increasing security ( one good shot could take out a large portion of the grid).
With proper diversification and a percentage of existing plants we can stabilize the fluctations in the wind and solar. A well understood techology.
My house uses a 2KW grid tied PV that generates about $25 from the electric co. per month from the excess I generate. This cost about $11,000 permitts included for me to install. By judicious use of Propane I use less than 100 gallons a year. My Point?? America needs to mature and realise that we dont need to have 200KWH per day macmansions. Nor do we need 8 MPG Hummers to take 3 miles to work and the grocery/hardware store. By far the cheapest way to to reduce our carbon, get off forgein oil, increase our national security is to invest in alternative energy, efficiency, and get a frigging handle on our population growth.We have a serious choice to make to use effectively our relatively cheap energy to build the infrastructure for tomorrow's needs.
Let Wall Street tell you , even with all the massive subsidies and legal protections given by the goverment they are wise enough to be weary of nuclear energy.
The first of kind have troubles, but if you keep the design standard they get fixed and get cheaper. When I worked in S. Korea, the first standard plant had a lot more problems in startup than the follow-on units. Korea actually chose nuclear because they can follow the grid pretty well. Today's reactors are "not your father's Oldsmobile".
It is true that the newer reactors have a much higher safety built into its design.It also comes with a massive price increase.
Resurrecting the nuclear power industry in the name of green energy is a mistake of massive proportions. The cost of building these massive central power plants is the most expensive way we could reduce our carbon footprint ( + $8-13 billion ea.).In the USA an assessment of 75 reactors predicted costs of $45 billion actual cost were $145 billion. The new reators are massivly more expensive. Currently in construction,the Finish newer reactor, STUK, has major cost overruns and delays. In India , having most recent built reators, averaged over 300% over budget. Without goverment financial and contractual guarantees ( public funds), nuclear power would be out of the market.
Nuclear plant operations emit almost no carbon. So does wind power, recovered heat industrial cogeneration ( electricity generated using existing heating energy) and end use efficiency. All these three cost at least 1/3 less than nuclear per kilowatt-hour. Firmed windpower and cogeneration are 1.5 times more cost efficient than nuclear at displacing CO2.
Of the US reactors built, 21% were prematurely closed due to reliability or cost problems, while another 27% have completely failed for a year at least once. In addition the reactors shut down doing a power failure, and due to physics are painfullly slow to restart( 2003 eastern US 2 weeks after shutdown equaled 50% capacity). Thus utilities must supply 15% reserve capacity (firming), considering 98% of power failures occure in the grid.
Both wind ( 35 times global potential electric use) and solar ( 70 times potential in one hour for all human use in one year)when diverified in type and location and coupled with steady renewables( geothermals, small hydro, biomass),existing fuelled plants and customer demand response need less backup than the central power plants such as coal and nuclear. The myth that renewal energy has neigther the power nor the reliability has been debunked in theory and practice.
I think 99% of nuclear advacates are sincere in motive and want the best for the country. The fact is whether we go nuclear or alternative or more likely some combination we eventually will have to make some alternations in lifestyle or mother nature will do it for us.
Gordon:
One thing you apparently do not understand about nuclear fission is that it can come in a variety of sizes. Not all plants are the extra large central station power plants that you are discussing.
I am currently the only (unpaid) employee of Adams Atomic Engines, Inc. We have not yet gained sufficient investor traction to move forward with our design, but our plan is to produce plants in sizes ranging from about 1 - 50 MWe.
Our plants will use long lived reactors as heat sources for turbo machines that very closely resemble the gas turbine engines that have enabled low capital costs for systems burning natural gas. Our advantages will be that our heat costs about 1/3 as much, it will be available anywhere in the world, and it does not release any greenhouse gases at all.
Though Adams Engines(TM) are pretty far off at this point - my stubborn streak has interfered with my ability ability to raise sufficient capital - there are better organized companies that are pursuing similar concepts.
Hyperion Power Generation, for example, is focusing on a heating unit that is small enough to fit on the back of an over-the-road truck that can produce 70 MW of thermal energy constantly for several years. I spoke to the company founder for The Atomic Show Podcast and he explained how his company is establishing the supply chain needed to build 4,000 units that will be able to provide heat for about $3 per million BTU. By comparison, liquified natural gas sold in Japan last week for $20 per million BTU.
Hyperion's patented technology was developed by a Los Alamos National Laboratory team led by Otis (Pete) Peterson and is backed by Altira Group LLC.
They are the real deal and have designed a system that meets every design criteria that Lovins could want - except the fact that it uses nuclear fission as the heat source. After reading Lovins's work dating back more than 35 years, I know he has a religious - or perhaps more accurately, a professional - aversion to that basic physical phenomenon.
(Note: I bumped into my own comment system limits with my full response. The above is a sample of what I plan as a more complete response post to someone who is sort of a surrogate for Amory Lovins. He has most of the Lovins gospel down cold. Now if I could just engage Lovins himself - that would be an interesting debate.)
Also the US did not follow the French/Japanese/Korean model (standard plants with similar crews). The prices drop for the nth of a kind plants.
The 70 MWth Hyperion Module is estimated to cost $25 Million. Coupled to a generator with 35% efficiency -> 25 MW, it comes to ~$1000.- per kW. That's cheaper than anything I know in CO2 free energy.
KLA:
The Hyperion Power Module price does not include the heat conversion equipment, just the cost of the heat production system (the reactor).
I do not have an estimated price for the "balance of plant".
Most of the rest of the rather hefty cost estimates that are floating around for central station nuclear projects are all in costs that includes such factors as interest on construction work in progress, projected inflation, balance of plant, land purchases, and even required transmission and road infrastructure.
Of course, when you are making a rate case for the PUC, you had better include all projected costs since "overruns" are exceedingly hard to justify. When you are battling against nuclear power projects, it is also in your best interest to quote as scary a price as possible and to ignore all of the possible benefits of the project.
Cost estimations without some kind of computation of the projected returns tell less than half of a story, but the rest of the story is not particularly interesting or favorable to the case of those that dislike nuclear power.
Hi Rod,
Yes, I know. But the Hyperion module price is for a 5 year full power unit. The electrical generation part does not need to be replaced every 5 years and can thus be amortized over a longer period.
And yes, you are right. Wind power advocates always quote the cost for a turbine, neglecting the infrastructure or regulation costs for the unpreductable supply. Even more for solar power. Even such things as quoting the price/Watt of solar cells (as low as $3/Watt peak) as indicative of cost. Even then, a solar panel itself costs about $8000/kW peak. An that difference is just the support structure for the cells.
About nine months ago we reported on a portable nuclear power generator made by Hyperion Power Generation which we dubbed a “nuclear hot tub” because of it’s size. We weren’t overly keen on the idea and comments ranged from incredulous to defensive.
The executive director of the Los Alamos Study Group wasn’t exactly supportive either: “The whole idea is loony and not worthy of much attention. Of course, factoring in enough cronyism, corruption and official ignorance and boosterism, it’s possible the principals could make some money during the initial stages, before the crows come home to roost.”
Gordon:
Who is "we" in the sentence "about nine months ago we.. ". Do you have a link to that report and the ensuing conversation? I would be interested in learning more.
From what I know of the technology there is no corruption, cronyism or boosterism involved.
The concept of small, simple, safe fission power is not isolated to Hyperion and I am not sure if their technology is going to win. It is, however, a viable and interesting approach to alternative power systems that do not use fossil fuel.
Rod,
You have to know that the "Los Alamos Study Group" Gordon refers to, is an anti-nuke organisation. They are just putting the words "Los Alamos" in their name, to give themselves an air of authority. They have absolutely nothing to do with the "Los Alamos National Lab".
Here is an article about Hyperion Power Modules from next Big Future, which describes the attitude of the Los Alamos National Lab towards the concept. Specifically, they are assisting in its development.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/09...-
generator.html
I suppose it's always possible that the "Los Alamos Study Group" may prove to have superior technical expertise in this matter... *cough*
Yeah Finrod,
Just like an "Astrologie Expert" knows more about black hole physics than an "Astrophysics Expert".
After all, both have "Astro" in their title.
I'm sure you remenber the " electricity to cheap to meter" . Your Hyperion may have potential and certainly should be researched and evaluated. It appears the reviews have been by pro nuclear advocates.Lets see how the actual "real world use" issue are dealt with. It took years/decades to see how several of the older reactors panned out, despite some of our best minds . If the issues of safety, proliferation,actual real world cost, disposal of fuel,cost of safely desposal after end use,transportation issues and actual true cost of KWH are objectively assessed and show potential , then great. I look forward to seeing this debated in the open market. I would think even the most pro nuke advocates would see this process as necessary and good science.
Gordon:
Yes, I remember how the phrase "too cheap to meter" has come to be used as a condemnation of nuclear power. I also know a bit about the specific context in which that phrase was first used.
The occasion was Lewis L. Strauss, Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission giving a speech to the National Association of Science Writers, New York City September 16th, 1954. As part of that lengthy talk, he said the following:
"It is not too much to expect that our children will enjoy in their homes electrical energy too cheap to meter, will know of great periodic regional famines in the world only as matters of history, will travel effortlessly over the seas and under them and through the air with a minimum of danger and at great speeds, and will experience a lifespan far longer than ours as disease yields and man comes to understand what causes him to age."
Though many nuclear professionals argue that Strauss was merely being inspirational, I contend that he was not too far off base. Here is why I believe that "metering" would be unnecessary for any customer served exclusively by existing (1960s vintage technology) nuclear power plants:
The major reason to meter electricity use is that the fossil fuel consumed to produce electricity represents between 60 and 90% of the production cost. If the electricity is not needed, the fuel consumption rate can be reduced in almost direct proportion, so producing less electricity costs the utility company less money.
If the demand is low enough so that fossil fuel plants can be shut down, it is possible to reduce the labor component of the cost, since a skeleton crew can keep the plant in a condition where it can be restarted once the demand returns.
In contrast, nuclear plants have fuel costs that are low enough to disappear into insignificance. They also have permanent crews that do not get smaller when the plant is not running. In fact, it is often more expensive to maintain a nuclear plant in a shutdown condition than it is to operate it.
Because of those characteristics, measuring the actual use for each customer is unnecessary; it would be more cost effective and fair if customers were charged a flat fee based on the amount of power that they wanted to have available at any one time.
This capacity charge would be more like a cable bill or a local phone bill. The utility would know how much capacity it needed to have on hand and could invest wisely to ensure that it could meet its obligations and it would save money in its billing systems.
Strauss was not even that far off in his prediction of how long that development would take. As Strauss said "It is not too much to expect that our children will enjoy in their homes electrical energy too cheap to meter..."
My father was 29 years old in 1954. I am one of the children mentioned in the original prediction. I intend to be using electricity for quite some time to come.
I guess that the phrase "too cheap to meter" has been misinterpreted for a long time as "free". I dont doubt that Strauss was aware that there would still be a cost associated with the provision of power.
Commenting by HaloScan
