Commodity inflation pushing up nuclear plant construction costs

Wind and solar are good alternative power sources, but the technology is years away from being cost effective. Nukes? Only a jackass would believe that they are cost effective on a "best situation" basis. I am far from an environmentalist but this approach is worse than a coal fired plant. THEY COST TOO MUCH AND THERE IS NO WAY AT YET TO GET RID OF THE TOXIC BY-PRODUCT. Not to mention that they also make those living around them a little jittery. How many of these were started and never completed due to an initial engineering foul up? Quite a few and at astronomical cost. Check what the one on Long Island cost. The State of N.Y. had to pick up the tab. Anyone remember 3 mile Island?
A far better alternative would be to resurrect all of the small dams that used to supply power. Most of the power stations are closed and in dis-repair, but the dams still exist. With the improvements in generators this is a cheap way to make electricity and it's clean. The cost to build just one Nuke plant would probably cover every one that's available and provide ten times the power with no toxic waste to worry about. These are all over the place and what is forgotten is they are BEFORE THE GRID. There are also numerous small local power stations that could be checked for potential. Most are still there, but vacant to generation as they were coal fired and dirty. Coal has a place also as technology exists to make it reasonably clean burning and we have a vast supply.

There are numerous cost challenges facing all energy sources. Part of the problem is that we have spent the last 15 years making the wrong infrastructure choices. We have an incredible base of capital equipment tied up in pipelines, gas fired power plants (currently operating at about 22% capacity factor - meaning they are idle 78% of the time), windmills (which average about 20% capacity factor), and old coal fired power plants.

Now that corporate leaders have figured out that those systems are not doing the job of providing reliable, predictable cost electricity, they are finally moving - as a herd - towards building new nuclear power plants. The nuclear plant vendors and their suppliers have gone through 30 very lean years, so they have far less capacity than is necessary to fill all of the potential orders in a short period of time. Like ALL suppliers that are faced with too much demand, they are negotiating higher prices to determine the level that will both maximize their profitability and balance their ability to supply with the market's demand. Simple economics, but a complex negotiation made more difficult by the fact that it takes the US government about 42 months to give permission to start building EVEN when the project is using a design that has gone through a very rigorous design certification. The vendors have to quote a price that includes the uncertainty that 42 months of delay before putting a shovel in the ground can bring. (Think about that - in 2004, who would have guessed that oil would be at $120 per barrel today.)

Yes, I remember TMI. I was still in college then. I am now 48 years old and have raised two daughters to adulthood in the intervening years. In the meantime, 104 nuclear plants in the US have been providing reliable, predictable electricity. Even using 1960s vintage technology, their operating costs are 30-50% lower than coal and about 1/4 as much as natural gas. They produce ZERO emissions - no mercury, no NOX, no SOX, no fly ash, and no CO2.

That plant on Long Island was taken over by the taxpayers because the New York government decided not to allow it to operate, even though the plant was completed and fully licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The price of electricity in the New York area would be a lot lower and the air would be a little bit cleaner if New Yorkers, through their government representatives would have allowed Shoreham to operate.

I doubt that hydro electric power is much of an answer. Most of the country doesn't have that option. Long transmission lines, ecological concerns, and drought limit it's impact. To me it seems like a very small piece of the solution to our long term energy problems, though I'm fine with pursuing it where it makes sense.

William is correct about the cost of nuclear plants being extremely high, not to mention the question of risk. Duke Power recently announced it would apply for the first nuclear power facility permit in 30 years and immediately several groups promised to sue them, ensuring years of delay.

Though it's still years away, I dream of every house and building utilizing small efficient fuel cells as local power plants. Maybe then we could make the grid, which is a very inefficient way to distribute electricity, a thing of the past.

I did read on Daily Tech a couple of days ago about an inprovement to batteries that may allow electric cars to travel up to 1200 miles on a charge.

Just imagine how these two developments could our nation. It would be similar to the change early in the twentieth century from horse and buggy to automobiles and the change created by the building of the existing power grid.