"Oil vs. Nuclear" Finite Resources: Rising Prices - Lessons from the Past...

On the banks of the River Thames, just on the edge of Greater London is a lesson the energy industry could well do to heed...

Listen up John Mc Cain... (and Ms. Hilton, if you are serious about running - I hope you're making notes)

The oil-fired power station on the Isle of Grain is a modern-day fossil of the UK's energy industry. Originally designed to be the largest oil-fired power station in the whole of Europe, the station was first designed before the oil shocks of the early seventies. By the time construction was finished, the UK had entered a different energy era - cheap oil was suddenly looking rather pricey.... and expensive electricity had got a lot cheaper. The economics of using an expensive fuel to produce a cheap product didn't make sense anymore.

Designed to have a capacity of 3300MW, the station now only operates at a maximum of 1320MW due to parts of the station being mothballed - and that is only 'when' the station operates - as the station is only used occasionally as peaking plant for "want of cheap oil"1

The Grain power station was built at a time of heady optimism and cheap oil, but as the prices of oil began to rise, the economics of the plant began to look very shaky indeed - we risk making the same mistake with Uranium. In the video that accompanies the Pickens Plan, we hear that 'New Nuclear Power Will Not Be Ready In Time' - by the time that anything does get built (with the nuclear industries long history of tardiness, missed deadlines and failed promises) the price of uranium will have moved and cheap renewables will be starting to come on stream.

We've already seen this week how big name corporate blue-chip retailers are already getting their own power at below-grid-cost by installing PV's in great numbers.

No one in their right mind would build a power station fired on oil today, it's simply too precious and expensive, however, for some 'Nuclear Power' is still an option that is on the table. If a nuclear renaissance does ever get off the ground in anything more than a tokenistic way, I'll give you a tip - URANIUM WOULD BE THE NEW OIL.

Mr. Pickens, an astute oil man, who has made a tidy sum out of the black stuff and knows way more than a thing or two about making money backs wind - it's a safe bet. For a given outlay Mr. Pickens knows that he can produce a facility which will produce a given amount of energy which can be sold at a minimum of today's cost - but with rising energy prices, the chances are he'll make a tidy mark-up.
You don't need to be an environmentalist anymore to support renewables. Mr. Pickens has finally made it acceptable for business to embrace clean energy in America - not out of any moral persuasion, altruism or left-wing dogma; but because it's a secure, safe, sane way of making a lot of money. The chances are, when other cotton on to the fact that there is money to be made, an awful lot of cheap wind power will start to come on to the grid.

What would this mean for nuclear power?

With a long supply chain with carbon emissions at every stage of the processing operation caused by the need to use energy to manufacture and dispose of nuclear fuel; nuclear fuel is doubly sensitive - reliant on conventional energy sources in manufacture, and also, as a finite resource itself, reliant on the laws of supply and demand [and the voodoo economics of the hedge-fund profiteers that mediate between the two].

The cost of the wind, and the cost of the sun does not fluctuate - it is free, gratis. The beauty of renewable energy technologies is that once the infrastructure is built, the prices are fixed, known, and predictable. We pay for the kit upfront, and have a sound idea of how much it is going to cost to maintain.

Contrast this with Nuclear Power - we haven't really got a clue what it is going to cost to maintain designs that have barely left the drawing board (and don't look like they will be any time soon) and we haven't got anywhere near a realistic estimate of how much nuclear waste will cost to dispose of - because we simply haven't got a clue how to do it safely in a robust manner that will last for the length of time the fuel is dangerous.

Rather than being at the whims of speculators and hedge-fund profiteers who profit from the unknowns of finite energy supplies without ever touching the resource themselves, with renewable energy we can avoid the artificial price rises factored into our energy supplies by speculation.
With virtually zero-running cost wind power, and nuclear power stations that are subject to the rising costs of maintenance and fuel supply - the chances are those that continue to be bought out by the nuclear fraternity will be red-faced in years to come.

I wouldn't like to be Monty Burns as Mr. Pickens idea gains traction.

1. Boyle, Everett & Ramage (2004) 'Energy Systems & Sustainability' Oxford University Press / Open University

Comments

[jrfromm]

No one involved in the nuclear industry sees it as anything more than an, at present, effective alternative to oil and coal. No one is foolish enough to see it as or consider it the final replacement for diminishing supplies of carbon-based, non-renewable fuels. What is known for a fact is that, despite its current "long supply chain with carbon emissions at every stage," nuclear energy has one of the smallest total carbon footprints per MW of electricity produced. What you never see or hear about is the "long supply chain with carbon emissions at every stage" associated with the production, transport, and erection of both solar- and wind-based generators.
The idea that "we haven't really got a clue what it is going to cost to maintain designs that have barely left the drawing board" is not only ludicrous, it is patently false. We have 30+ years of nuclear power plant operational experience under our belts which have refined early core and vessel and piping system designs. We are NOT starting over from scratch. But critics will not tell you that. And none of this takes into account the years of fossil-based electrical generation that went into the refinement of designs on the steam/electrical side of the plants.

[research]

Definition of "Carbon footprint" is not solid:
http://www.isa-research.co.uk/docs/ISA-UK_Report_07-01_carbon_footprint.pdf

Wind and Solar have smaller footprints depending on which article you read:
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/05/nuke-vs-solar-the-carbon-calculus.html

The only available commercial reactors are the "once Through" So 13 years of the worlds uranium, that we already mostly import, and the uranium resource wars start again.

It takes about 10 years to build a nuke power plant.

Nuke power is more expensive than wind and Solar.

Caron footprint is not the only danger: Nukes use massive amounts of water, they release radiation into the world, and they have been "red team" terrorist attacked with ease.

1 million years of storage at Yucca's 150,000 acres. I that same land weren't poisoned, it could be used to generate 16,000 trillion dollars worth of solar energy over the million years. Yucca's on a fault and is part of an ancient river.

Nukes are a deadly boondoggle.

[jrfromm]

Okay, let's talk about water. How much water DO nuclear plants use? And, where does that stand in relation to fossil-fueled power stations? Truth be told, they do not use any more water than any other type of power station. And, they have to clean up most of the water they borrow from the environment to use as a heat sink. And, what little they are allowed to return to the environment is "cleaner" than when it was borrowed.
As for your implication that the land at Yucca would be "poisoned" and that that would therefore preclude its use as a solar power plant, just HOW would such use be prevented? It would seem to me an effective use of land that would not be legally habitable (which it realisticly isn't, as it stands now).

[Whatevah]

There are several studies by respected neutral economists that look at the long-term costs of nuclear fuel. It's unusually easy to predict because we have such a firm idea about the maximum number of reactors that could be operational 5, 10 and more years in the future. Why aren't any of these experts quoted? It's been a while since I read this stuff, but my memory is that their conclusions are contrary to the conclusions in this column.

I certainly do support as much solar and wind development as possible, but I think it's unlikely that this will reduce the total price of electricity at any time in the future. Global demand is growing faster than any combination of new supply can satisfy.

[research]

How many nukes we have is our choice.

At our current nuke use, in 85 years the easy uranium will be gone. If the entire world goes nukes, we will be out of th easy uranium in just 13 years. We already import most of our uranium.

Nukes are a dead end.

Let's go wind and solar forever.

[drkazmd65]

Excellently put Mr. Harper!

Mr. Pickens has exactly the right idea - even if it is primarily because he is playing an angle that he knows will turn him a tidy profit.

I'll be adding solar panels to my roof as soon as I can figure out a way to swing the capital to do it, and as soon as I can convince my historic district to let it slide through the zoning regulations.

[research]

If you live in AZ CA CN MN CO Mo NY OR TX, Installed Solar power is FREE. Other state still have rebates and incentives all listed. The fed gives 2000$, but it ends this year!

http://www.power-savetv.com/incentives.html

I cannot vouch for this company, I know only what I have read on their web site.

there is another non-profit site:
http://www.dsireusa.org/