Kuwait Goes Nuclear

[KissMy]

Kuwait Goes Nuclear

Gulf state is the fourth Arab country to announce a nuclear program. Kuwait will build four nuclear reactors over the next 12 years, a national nuclear energy official has said.

Ahmad Bishara, secretary general of Kuwait’s National Nuclear Energy Committee (KNNEC), said that Kuwait is planning to build four 1,000 megawatt reactors by 2022. Speaking to press in Tokyo, Bishara said construction will begin as early as January.

The move would make Kuwait, the world’s fourth largest oil exporter, the fourth Arab state to announce plans to build nuclear reactors for energy, after Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

 

[asterism]

Kuwait Goes Nuclear

Gulf state is the fourth Arab country to announce a nuclear program. Kuwait will build four nuclear reactors over the next 12 years, a national nuclear energy official has said.

Ahmad Bishara, secretary general of Kuwait’s National Nuclear Energy Committee (KNNEC), said that Kuwait is planning to build four 1,000 megawatt reactors by 2022. Speaking to press in Tokyo, Bishara said construction will begin as early as January.

The move would make Kuwait, the world’s fourth largest oil exporter, the fourth Arab state to announce plans to build nuclear reactors for energy, after Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

Good for them.

 

[boedicca]

We should follow their example and switch to nuclear energy as much as possible as well.

 

[Charles_Main]

We should follow their example and switch to nuclear energy as much as possible as well.

Yep, Responsible Nuclear energy could virtually solve our Energy Crisis. Spent fuel rods can be reprocessed. 0 emissions and cheap power. What's not to like.

 

[daveman]

We should follow their example and switch to nuclear energy as much as possible as well.

Yep, Responsible Nuclear energy could virtually solve our Energy Crisis. Spent fuel rods can be reprocessed. 0 emissions and cheap power. What's not to like.

 

[Old Rocks]

Cost.

 

[Old Rocks]

Comparative electrical generation costs - SourceWatch

Comparative costs data: California regulatory agencies (May 2008)
On May 13, 2008, the California Energy Commission and the California Public Utilities Commission released a comparison of the costs of of new generating capacity from various sources. The analysis for the comparison was prepared by Energy and Environmental Economics, Inc., a consulting firm that prepares studies for utilities, governmental regulators, law firms, and non-profit agencies.[1] These estimates include firming resource costs.

Busbar cost in cents per kilowatt-hour in 2008 dollars:

Coal:

Coal Supercritical: 10.554
Coal Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC): 11.481
Coal IGCC with Carbon Capture & Storage (IGCC with CCS): 17.317
Alternatives:

Biogas: 8.552
Wind: 8.910
Gas Combined Cycle: 9.382 (assumes $5.50 to $6.50/MMBtu for gas)
Geothermal: 10.182
Hydroelectric: 10.527
Concentrating solar thermal (CSP): 12.653
Nuclear: 15.316
Biomass: 16.485
Busbar means the price of the power leaving the plant. All capital, fuel, and operating costs are taken into account in busbar costs.

The spreadsheet containing these costs can be found at CPUC GHG Modeling.

 

[KissMy]

Comparative electrical generation costs - SourceWatch

Comparative costs data: California regulatory agencies (May 2008)
On May 13, 2008, the California Energy Commission and the California Public Utilities Commission released a comparison of the costs of of new generating capacity from various sources. The analysis for the comparison was prepared by Energy and Environmental Economics, Inc., a consulting firm that prepares studies for utilities, governmental regulators, law firms, and non-profit agencies.[1] These estimates include firming resource costs.

Busbar cost in cents per kilowatt-hour in 2008 dollars:

Coal:

Coal Supercritical: 10.554
Coal Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC): 11.481
Coal IGCC with Carbon Capture & Storage (IGCC with CCS): 17.317
Alternatives:

Biogas: 8.552
Wind: 8.910
Gas Combined Cycle: 9.382 (assumes $5.50 to $6.50/MMBtu for gas)
Geothermal: 10.182
Hydroelectric: 10.527
Concentrating solar thermal (CSP): 12.653
Nuclear: 15.316
Biomass: 16.485
Busbar means the price of the power leaving the plant. All capital, fuel, and operating costs are taken into account in busbar costs.

The spreadsheet containing these costs can be found at CPUC GHG Modeling.

Nuclear is best for base-load power. Wind & Solar are spontaneous & need Hydro for storage. Natural Gas & Coal coal balance load & peak power.

 

[Charles_Main]

Comparative electrical generation costs - SourceWatch

Comparative costs data: California regulatory agencies (May 2008)
On May 13, 2008, the California Energy Commission and the California Public Utilities Commission released a comparison of the costs of of new generating capacity from various sources. The analysis for the comparison was prepared by Energy and Environmental Economics, Inc., a consulting firm that prepares studies for utilities, governmental regulators, law firms, and non-profit agencies.[1] These estimates include firming resource costs.

Busbar cost in cents per kilowatt-hour in 2008 dollars:

Coal:

Coal Supercritical: 10.554
Coal Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC): 11.481
Coal IGCC with Carbon Capture & Storage (IGCC with CCS): 17.317
Alternatives:

Biogas: 8.552
Wind: 8.910
Gas Combined Cycle: 9.382 (assumes $5.50 to $6.50/MMBtu for gas)
Geothermal: 10.182
Hydroelectric: 10.527
Concentrating solar thermal (CSP): 12.653
Nuclear: 15.316
Biomass: 16.485
Busbar means the price of the power leaving the plant. All capital, fuel, and operating costs are taken into account in busbar costs.

The spreadsheet containing these costs can be found at CPUC GHG Modeling.

Exactly how are those costs calculated is what I want to know. A nuclear plant requires a very large initial investment. So the longer it operates The better cost to gain ratio you will have. So when they figured those costs did they figure that in at all?

 

[Old Rocks]

Comparative electrical generation costs - SourceWatch

Comparative costs data: California regulatory agencies (May 2008)
On May 13, 2008, the California Energy Commission and the California Public Utilities Commission released a comparison of the costs of of new generating capacity from various sources. The analysis for the comparison was prepared by Energy and Environmental Economics, Inc., a consulting firm that prepares studies for utilities, governmental regulators, law firms, and non-profit agencies.[1] These estimates include firming resource costs.

Busbar cost in cents per kilowatt-hour in 2008 dollars:

Coal:

Coal Supercritical: 10.554
Coal Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC): 11.481
Coal IGCC with Carbon Capture & Storage (IGCC with CCS): 17.317
Alternatives:

Biogas: 8.552
Wind: 8.910
Gas Combined Cycle: 9.382 (assumes $5.50 to $6.50/MMBtu for gas)
Geothermal: 10.182
Hydroelectric: 10.527
Concentrating solar thermal (CSP): 12.653
Nuclear: 15.316
Biomass: 16.485
Busbar means the price of the power leaving the plant. All capital, fuel, and operating costs are taken into account in busbar costs.
The spreadsheet containing these costs can be found at CPUC GHG Modeling.

Exactly how are those costs calculated is what I want to know. A nuclear plant requires a very large initial investment. So the longer it operates The better cost to gain ratio you will have. So when they figured those costs did they figure that in at all?

Another point here, when a nuke reachs the end of its lifespan, ussually about 20 years, it is a very expensive process to remove the core, and ship it to a safe storage facility. When a wind turbine reachs it expected life span, also about twenty years, they simply use a crane to remove the old turbine, and install a new one on the tower. Then the old one goes in for a rebuild.

 

[Old Rocks]

Comparative electrical generation costs - SourceWatch

Comparative costs data: California regulatory agencies (May 2008)
On May 13, 2008, the California Energy Commission and the California Public Utilities Commission released a comparison of the costs of of new generating capacity from various sources. The analysis for the comparison was prepared by Energy and Environmental Economics, Inc., a consulting firm that prepares studies for utilities, governmental regulators, law firms, and non-profit agencies.[1] These estimates include firming resource costs.

Busbar cost in cents per kilowatt-hour in 2008 dollars:

Coal:

Coal Supercritical: 10.554
Coal Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC): 11.481
Coal IGCC with Carbon Capture & Storage (IGCC with CCS): 17.317
Alternatives:

Biogas: 8.552
Wind: 8.910
Gas Combined Cycle: 9.382 (assumes $5.50 to $6.50/MMBtu for gas)
Geothermal: 10.182
Hydroelectric: 10.527
Concentrating solar thermal (CSP): 12.653
Nuclear: 15.316
Biomass: 16.485
Busbar means the price of the power leaving the plant. All capital, fuel, and operating costs are taken into account in busbar costs.

The spreadsheet containing these costs can be found at CPUC GHG Modeling.

Nuclear is best for base-load power. Wind & Solar are spontaneous & need Hydro for storage. Natural Gas & Coal coal balance load & peak power.

Exactly. Use each source of power for the most economical mix. For this, we need to redesign the grid for a distributed grid. And put legs of the grid into areas that have an abundance of potential power. There are many areas where a grid could pick up multiple sources. In Southeastern Oregon, as just one example, we have enough sunny days that solar thermal, 24/7 power, and photovoltaic solar are definately economical. There is also vast potential in that area for wind and geo-thermal. And we, the people, own most of that land, so the power companies could pay the rent on the properties that their generation sits on into a fund that would help take care of our public lands.

 

[daveman]

Exactly how are those costs calculated is what I want to know. A nuclear plant requires a very large initial investment. So the longer it operates The better cost to gain ratio you will have. So when they figured those costs did they figure that in at all?

Don't forget to add in all the frivolous lawsuits from environuts. That's gotta be a big chunk of change.

 

[konradv]

Nuclear is so 20th century. We need a national push towards thermonuclear(fusion) power. With nearly limitless fuel and very low nuclear waste potential, it's the REAL power of the future.

First fisson (A)bomb- 1945, First fission reactor hooked to a power grid- 1954

First fusion (H)bomb- 1952, First fusion reactor hooked to a power grid- ????

Isn't it about time? For more info go to:

ITER - the way to new energy OR

Department of Energy - Fusion

 

[Si modo]

Good for Kuwait.

 

[xotoxi]

This is great news!

Hopefully some of their neighboring nations will develop nuclear power as well.

 

[Charles_Main]

Nuclear is so 20th century. We need a national push towards thermonuclear(fusion) power. With nearly limitless fuel and very low nuclear waste potential, it's the REAL power of the future.

First fisson (A)bomb- 1945, First fission reactor hooked to a power grid- 1954

First fusion (H)bomb- 1952, First fusion reactor hooked to a power grid- ????

Isn't it about time? For more info go to:

ITER - the way to new energy OR

Department of Energy - Fusion

Been saying that for 5 years now. We need a Manhattan project like approach to developing Fusion NOW.

Now that is the true, Clean, safe Answer to all our energy problems. So efficient Fusion plants could even be used to electrically separate Hydrogen from Water to power cars, planes and ships.

Unfortunately the scientists say. At least at today's funding levels. It is 50 years from being a practical solution.

 

[asterism]

Nuclear is so 20th century. We need a national push towards thermonuclear(fusion) power. With nearly limitless fuel and very low nuclear waste potential, it's the REAL power of the future.

First fisson (A)bomb- 1945, First fission reactor hooked to a power grid- 1954

First fusion (H)bomb- 1952, First fusion reactor hooked to a power grid- ????

Isn't it about time? For more info go to:

ITER - the way to new energy OR

Department of Energy - Fusion

Been saying that for 5 years now. We need a Manhattan project like approach to developing Fusion NOW.

Now that is the true, Clean, safe Answer to all our energy problems. So efficient Fusion plants could even be used to electrically separate Hydrogen from Water to power cars, planes and ships.

Unfortunately the scientists say. At least at today's funding levels. It is 50 years from being a practical solution.

And when Scientists can demonstrate ability to manage a budget, I'm all for throwing money their way. The problem is that they don't have the same evidence and cost-benefit analysis that was present during the Manhattan Project. You say you've been saying that we need to move into a new direction for 5 years. So, how much money do you need and what is the expected benefit in terms of investment?

 

[Old Rocks]

Cost benefit ratio in science. Now that is about the funniest thing that I have ever heard. How do you estimate the cost benefit ratio of basic research when you haven't the foggiest idea of where that research will lead? Did someone, when they were studying the properties of semiconductors point out that the research would lead to computers in allmost all homes in this nation?

The most expensive basic research in the world, is the research not done.

 

[JiggsCasey]

We should follow their example and switch to nuclear energy as much as possible as well.

Yep, Responsible Nuclear energy could virtually solve our Energy Crisis. Spent fuel rods can be reprocessed. 0 emissions and cheap power. What's not to like.

It never will... Study the basic laws of thermodynamics.

Further, and far more important, where is the uranium going to come from? It currently can't supply 60% of world demand.