A Renegade Against Greenpeace
Why he says
they're wrong to view nuclear energy
as 'evil'
“Our freedoms can
only
be maintained by the advancement of technologies that serve mankind—
not
advancing technology puts Freedom at Risk and
our freedom is
threatened because we
don't take the time to
participate in it” GJD
Support is Very Important Please Donate
National Clean Energy Summit 2.0: Jobs and the New Economy
Equal time: let the TRUTH be known!
August 10th 2009 10:00 AM - 4:00 PM University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Cox Pavilion
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, and the Center for American Progress Action Fund have once again brought together some of the most respected leaders from industry, science, government, and advocacy organizations to discuss a policy agenda for creating good jobs in the new economy by accelerating the deployment of clean energy and energy efficiency, advancing energy independence, and ensuring long-term prosperity for Nevada, the nation, and the world. (Arithmetically impossible without nuclear energy development) This year’s National Clean Energy Summit 2.0 assessed the progress made since the first Summit in 2008, including the major clean energy and energy efficiency investments in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and looked ahead towards upcoming legislative opportunities as we continue to chart a course for our nation’s clean energy future. (It ignores the inclusion of nuclear energy within the “mix” needed to achieve “cost effective” energy . . . it ignores Senator Lamar Alexander’s blueprint proposal for 100 new nuclear plants in 20 years. . . it also ignores the statements below which validate our national need for nuclear development by other Senators, the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
. . . Congress is already considering new ways to encourage the electric industry to build new plants. In December 2009, Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Joe Lieberman, I/D-Conn., released a climate change legislative framework that would also encourage nuclear energy development.
New nuclear plants are likely to get a boost long before the bill becomes law. The Energy Department is negotiating with four utilities over the details of an $18.5 billion award in loan guarantees (clarify that these guarantees are for potential political delay insurance not loans) provided by earlier legislation for the construction of new nuclear plants, government and industry sources said. The companies include UniStar Nuclear Energy, NRG Energy, Scana and Southern Co.
|
TRUTH be known . . . “Nuclear Energy Facts”
Click on this LINK to a PDF document by |
 Great Full Coverage Article LINKS to their website |
19 organizations draft a joint letter to DOE Secretary Dr. Steven Chu
Dear Dr. Chu: (full draft on link above)
The undersigned organizations are writing to advise you of our growing concern over reports that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) will decline to seek funding in Fiscal Year 2011 for continuation of the Yucca Mountain license application now pending before the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
We believe that termination of the Yucca Mountain license application would be premature and unwise as well as deleterious in general to the Nation's energy independence, environmental progress, economic competitiveness, job creation and national security.
| candidates page |
Open Letter
US Nuclear
Energy Foundation offers
a "Road Tour" of our presentation,
"A Primer on Nuclear Energy" to small western towns & Nevada communities.
Jump to these hot items
Energy Cost Comparisons
PAYING
TOO MUCH FOR POWER?
|
Energy Type |
Cents per kWh |
1250 kW/h Ave Bill |
|
|
|
|
|
Nuclear |
7.0¢ |
$87.50 |
|
Coal |
7.1¢ |
$88.75 |
|
Natural Gas |
7.8¢ |
$97.50 |
|
Geothermal |
9¢ |
$112.50 |
|
Petroleum |
10.6¢ |
$132.50 |
|
Wind |
11.4¢ |
$142.50 |
|
Biomass |
11¢ |
$137.50 |
|
Solar -- Thermal |
21¢ |
$262.50 |
|
Solar - Photo Voltaic |
1.11 |
$1,387.50 |
|
|
|
|
SIMILAR ASSESSMENT
We try to be careful with these numbers – and provide all of the assumptions which are key. We know for instance that the renewable folks don’t tend to account for the cost of subsidies in their calculations which has a huge impact on the true cost numbers.
Modeling of new plant costs indicates that estimates of busbar costs are sensitive to more than just the overnight cost of the facility. They are sensitive to assumptions about the debt-equity ratio of the project, the cost of capital, capacity factors, useful life, the scope of work included in the project cost, and other variables.
These numbers were found on a “Consumer Session” set of PowerPoint slides on the Nevada PUC website (link below). These PPT slides cite no sources for the numbers presented, so we have no way of determining their basis or checking their assumptions independently.
The value shown for the cost of each resource type was the high end from a range of values presented in the original data published on a Nevada PUC website. The coal and gas costs shown in the original PPT slides assume a cost of carbon described only as “$6-$8 per ton”. [In work with Cambridge Energy Research Associates and others, the anticipated price of carbon is well above this range, more on the order of $20 per ton or more. Moreover, CERA and others estimate that cost per ton must rise to $50 or so to have a substantial effect on reducing carbon emissions under most scenarios.] The range of values presented in the Consumer Sessions PPT file, with and without a carbon price, is shown below:
|
Resource Type |
Cost w/o Carbon Charge (Cents/kWh) Est. wholesale |
Cost w/Carbon @ $6-$8/ton (Cents/kWh) |
|
Nuclear |
5-7¢ |
Virtually no carbon emissions |
|
Pulverized Coal |
6 to 6.5¢ |
6.6 to 7.1 TOTAL = .12¢ |
|
Natural Gas Combined Cycle |
6.5 to 7.5¢ |
6.8 to 7.8¢ |
|
Geothermal |
6 to 9¢ |
Virtually no carbon emissions |
|
Wind |
6.4 to 11.4 w/tax credits |
Virtually no carbon emissions |
|
Biomass |
7 to 11¢ |
Virtually no carbon emissions |
|
Solar-thermal |
11 to 21¢ |
Virtually no carbon emissions |
|
Solar-photovoltaic |
1.11 w/battery backup |
Virtually no carbon emissions |
We note some differences with the consumer costs presented in the table generally applied to Nevada. According to the Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration, the average Nevada residential customer consumed 986 kwh per month in 2007, not the 1250 kwh. According to the EIA, the average residential price for electricity in Nevada was about 11.8 cents per kwh in 2007.
Definitive work on new plant costs compares the cost of new nuclear plants to other baseload technologies, including pulverized coal, IGCC, and combined cycle gas turbines.
We find that 0.07¢ /kWh cost of nuclear is on par with the levelized busbar costs we estimate for new nuclear plants using an NEI Financial Model.
ABOUT OPERATING COSTS The Electric Utility Cost Group collects the most complete and pedigreed data on operating plant costs. The Nuclear Committee of EUCG has labored for years to define and implement a consistent set of cost metrics across the operating fleet. Their metric of choice, called Total Generating Costs, includes O&M, Administrative and General, Fuel, and Annual Capital Improvements, but excludes “Carrying Costs”. The Carrying Costs include return on investment, depreciation, and decommissioning funding. The “mortgage costs” are excluded from the EUCG’s Total Generating Cost because the cost basis of every plant differs due to changes in ownership and changes in the structure of the owner/operator/holding company, to say nothing of differences in the treatment of capital costs from state to state. The other EUCG generation committees (Fossil, Hydro) do not yet have Total Generating Cost data to permit us to compare nuclear plant operating costs on the same basis as fossil and hydro plants. In our review of the EUCG’s most recent complete year’s data, from 2007, the median value of Total Generating Cost appears to be about $25 per MWh (2.5 cents per kWh), about what you recalled.
Link to Nevada Public Utilities PowerPoint Slides
LETTERS TO OUR REPRESENTATIVES
AND
our contact database!
Contact Database
U. S. Governors
U. S. Senators
U. S. Represenatives
Nevada Senate
Nevada Assembly
The Economic Impact
of the Yucca Mountain Nuclear
Waste Repository on the Economy of Nevada
Prepared by
Mary Riddel
Martin Boyett
R. Keith Schwer
Center for Business and Economic Research
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
September 29, 2003
This snippet is significantly abridged but the full text of the summary of this report is LINKED HERE. Consideration should also be assessed for the time frame economics from 2003 to 2010 and further.
This research summarizes the current and expected future economic impacts of the YMP on the state of Nevada. The findings show that YMP could provide a stable source of revenue, income, and employment for the state.
In 2000, the YMP contributed $195.7 million to the Nevada economy and an additional $188.6 million in 2001. The YMP was responsible for 3,650 jobs in 2000. This translates into a real disposable income of roughly $131 million earned each year in the state of Nevada . . . New employment linked to the project is expected to peak during the construction phase at nearly 4,500 jobs . . . Employment gains will average 2,000 to 2,500 above and beyond the baseline job forecast during the transportation and operations phase. Wages, salaries, and in-state procurement activity are expected to boost state GSP by as much as $228 million during the peak of the construction phase in 2006. Average annual GSP impacts over the transportation and operations phase exceed $102 million annually, topping $127 million in many years.
YMP jobs will be concentrated in relatively high-wage industries such as construction, professional services, and engineering. As such, they can provide a steady stream of income to Nevada residents that are largely independent of national and international economic cycles. This study does not address any potential of evaluating the possibility of locating a used nuclear fuel reprocessing facility in Nevada to reprocess the planned waste.
|
A nuclear future for Nevada Think About It! This report is openly published for the citizens, business community and public policy makers to assess and include nuclear in the development of renewable energy resources. |
 |
|
The essay above discusses the Origins of the Conflict; the Downside, including the Opponent’s 1 Case; Policies proposed by the Opponents and Mistakes of the Advocates; an Analysis of the Debate; and Future Paths, which are the author’s predictions. |
|
|
See our BOOKS - ARTICLES Terrestrial Energy . . . answers for the public. |
|
Link to
Our Report On
American Nuclear Society Winter meeting, Reno, NV
 |
 |
 |
US Nuclear Energy addresses the Sparks Republican Women
Special Guest, Dan R. Keuter,
Vice President Planning & Innovation, Entergy Nuclear Inc.
East, West, front and back for Areva
22 December 2008
|
Areva
has simultaneously announced plans for the manufacture of |
|
The deal with Mitsubishi builds on a memorandum of understanding signed in April 2008. It will see Areva take a 30% stake in a new company that will "be a fully-fledged nuclear fuel supplier, integrating development, design, manufacturing and sales of nuclear fuel."
The remainder of the company would be held by: Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (35%), Mitsubishi Materials Corporation (30%), Mitsubishi Corporation (5%). It will be built out of the existing Mitsubishi Nuclear Fuel company, in Tokai-mura.
The new company is yet to be named, but statements from the firms said it would be established in the first half of 2009, and expects Y50 billion ($550 million) in sales by 2020 in the Japanese market. It would employ around 550 people and will supply fuel for light-water reactors and high-temperature gas-cooled models including MOX. It will offer reconversion services and would market MHI-designed fuel assemblies outside of Japan.
Areva and MHI also confirmed that they want to invest in a nuclear fuel fabrication facility in the USA.
In France, Areva has agreed a framework for the reprocessing and recycling of Electricité de France's used nuclear fuel from 2008 to 2040. It covers Areva's pick-up and transportation of the used fuel from EdF's 20 nuclear power sites, its reprocessing and the separation of re-usable materials followed by packaging and minimization of waste volumes for eventual disposal.
The companies said the new framework gave them long-term visibility - especially in the context of EdF's desire to increase volumes sent for reprocessing from 850 to 1050 tonnes per year and the need to step up manufacture of MOX fuel from recycled materials from 100 to 120 tonnes per year.
Our long term mission is to mobilize citizens in Nevada and across the U.S. to drive Government, media and our nations business community to design build and construct new 3rd and 4 generation nuclear power reactors and spent fuel reprocessing technology throughout America!
We are 100% supportive of renewable energy our challenge is getting it cost comparative and we urge renewables and green proponants to support nuclear as “part” our entire clean energy mix!
Yucca
Mountain application docketed
US Nuclear plants set records for electricity production, efficiency
and in low cost in 2007
Link to
FULL TEXT
OUR Hotspots!
We would like to clarify that although our focus is nuclear energy, we are 100% supportive of all renewable and green energy alternatives. However, the criteria is that they must be "cost effective"!
The highly discussed topic of Green Energy is going to require a "socioeconomic acceptance", meaning, society will have to accept that the development of wind, solar, etc. will increase your electrical power costs. This is ok for the affluent portion of our society but it will be very difficult for low-income and fixed income people in retirement to manage their ever increasing energy costs!
They will say, if we build 200 solar farms, the production cost will come down and it will, but if we build 200 new nuclear plants, those costs will come down as well and the "production output" of nuclear energy far exceeds that any other source!
l We started losing our US manufacturing industries in the 80s due to high energy costs and that trend has been devastating to many “industrial” products moving offshore partially as a result of energy costs. Today, the cost of energy is a world competition not just a US competition. Energy IS the driver of all economies worldwide, we cannot afford to lose this competition!
l Nuclear kilowatts today are sold at about .9 cents per KWH. The best German designed solar systems are “trying” to achieve .22 cents per KWH. Pennies here but billions when they accumulate. We need renewable sources but, we really need to “reduce” our energy costs in order to compete with the “world” industrialization. Not only are they out performing us with labor productivity, they are also building nuclear power plants and it's these combinations that are making it very difficult for US to stay competitive.
|
A NEW PAPER FROM DR. COHEN
Dr. Bernard L. Cohen,
University of Pittsburgh The Greenhouse Effect: on melting of our ice caps . . . If present trends continue . . . a reasonable estimate-middle of the next century, 1.5 to 3'. 1 foot sea level rise would move the coast line back 50-100' in the northeast . . . 200' in the Carolinas . . . 2-400' in California . . . 100 to 1,000' in Florida . . . several miles in Louisiana . . . Dr. Cohen book Chap 3 Pgs 24-25 on the link below.
|
VIP Links Tab Jump too it!
Special Page Links:
Susan Eisenhower speaks at UN on role of nuclear energy
The riff about Data Falsification at Yucca Mountain, read the truth! Click-the-link!
Think About It!
The mission for this website is to provide an “informational educational source” about Nuclear Energy compared to other forms of “comparable volumes” of electrical energy production. Our purpose is to present scientific studies and logical conclusions to average Citizens, news media, government and business representatives about the efficiency, productivity and safety of Nuclear Energy Power Plants.
01) We are a grassroots informational group to educate average citizens about the benefits of nuclear energy and the Yucca Mountain waste repository. Environmentalists, government regulation and the media have created a negative perception about the safety of nuclear energy and the repository for its spent fuel. Our mission is to bring the facts of the science to the public.
02) We believe nuclear energy is the best alternative to fossil fuels for energy needs of the present and future. We believe nuclear energy is the best alternative energy source to provide quality jobs in America. We believe the Yucca Mountain project is the best solution to the nuclear waste by-product issue.
03) We believe the pursuit of nuclear energy research will contribute to the development of many new nuclear power generator designs which are more efficient and safer then their predecessors.
04) We believe the development of more nuclear power plants will significantly reduce our dependency on fossil fuels, which will improve our economy on many levels while reducing long-term energy costs and our dependency on foreign oil.
We need to re-build America’s nuclear ENERGY industry. Nearly every industrialized country in the world including “oil rich” middle east countries are building nuclear power plants because they are a “maximum efficiency energy source”. In the early years we over reacted to the fear of "radiation effects, accidents, etc." of the 60-70s (SEE THE CHERNOBYL tab). Nuclear technologies today are well advanced from when we developed our first nuclear plants. We are foolish not to excel and benefit from this efficient energy source which would have far reaching benefits of stabilizing America’s energy requirements and independence from the oil producing nations.
We need YOU to become Pro-Active. Our US energy requirements exceed our production requirements and our fossil fuels are KILLING us and they are the largest contributors to our global “greenhouse effect” problems. Eliminating our consumption is not an option. We are learning to conserve and we are developing alternative sources, wind, solar, etc. However, the fact remains, the sooner we resolve to “educate ourselves” about NUCLEAR ENERGY and notify our state and federal governments that we want this directive addressed, the sooner we “will resolve” our energy needs for our children and grandchildren. America’s energy has extremely important ramifications for YOUR American freedoms. If you share these views then we urge you to lend a hand!