[EnergySpin]

This is an interesting and new take on the economics of nuclear energy analyzed within a Real Options context. It's a paper that's currently under review for publication and considers the case of investment in nuclear energy as a hedge against future uncertanties in both fossil fuel energy prices and carbon emission taxes.

Try the IDEAS website ... it provides access to the PDF
http://ideas.repec.org/p/cam/camdae/0555.html

[seldom_seen]

This is an interesting and new take on the economics of nuclear energy analyzed within a Real Options context. It's a paper that's currently under review for publication and considers the case of investment in nuclear energy as a hedge against future uncertanties in both fossil fuel energy prices and carbon emission taxes.

Try the IDEAS website ... it provides access to the PDF
http://ideas.repec.org/p/cam/camdae/0555.html

looking at the paper:

Abstract

High fossil fuel prices have rekindled interest in nuclear power...

No f'ing sh*t?

We need a 27 page paper from the University of Cambridge Economics Deparment to tell us that high fossil fuel prices have rekindled interest in nuclear power? No wonder why we're in such a mess.

The intellectual masterbation of economists would be hysterical if it wasn't so pathetic.

[seldom_seen]

Wait a minute! These Cambridge economists are on to something:

Despite recent revived interest in nuclear power, the prospects for merchant nuclear investment in liberalised industries without government support do not seem promising.

In other words. If you want some nukes, kindly bend over please while we stamp the nuclear tax on to your natural gas bill that is already in the stratosphere.

High capital cost, uncertain construction cost, potential construction and licensing delays, and economies of scale are the main features that make nuclear power technology unattractive to private investors in liberalised electricity markets.

You're preaching to the converted bother. Here in Washington state we're still paying for nuclear plants that were never even completed.

In time consumers will surely become more sophisticated

They're called people you f'ing idiots, not "consumers." I was just starting to gain some respects for these sociopaths, then they blew it. Nor did they elaborate on how "consumers" will all of the sudden become more "sophisticated." Does their sophistication grow in proportion with the number of Wal-Marts?

[hanrahan]

I am an irregular visitor here and I don't follow all threads, so it is unlikely that I would be the first to comment that this is a "loaded" question.

"When did you stop beating your wife?"...... "What, you haven't.....?'

Is it too simplistic to suggest that doing BOTH is an option? And better than either on it's own?

[sameu]

the magical word of the future won't be or but and
and and and
and

[DigitalCubano]

No f'ing sh*t?

We need a 27 page pa87iper from the University of Cambridge Economics Deparment to tell us that high fossil fuel prices have rekindled interest in nuclear power? No wonder why we're in such a mess.

The intellectual masterbation of economists would be hysterical if it wasn't so pathetic.

That's the problem with these forums: you try to elevate the level of discourse and you get hystrionics from the folks who rather not. Seldom_seen, why don't you fulfill your moniker and go chain yourself to Luna or something? It's obvious that you have nothing to contribute.

[seldom_seen]

That's the problem with these forums: you try to elevate

What exactly are you trying to elevate besides my radiation level with your nuclear disinformation?

[DigitalCubano]

What exactly are you trying to elevate besides my radiation level with your nuclear disinformation?

Exactly the type of sophmoric response we've all come to expect from you. Congrats, you've inaugurated my ignore list!

[chris-h]

Are we hoping for a transition from fission to fusion, bypassing the renewable route?

Fusion is infinite energy relative to our lifetimes.

without helium-3 fusion is NOT going to happen.Go mine it on the moon
without helium-3 each reaction produces 1 neutron ...

[Tanada]

Are we hoping for a transition from fission to fusion, bypassing the renewable route?

Fusion is infinite energy relative to our lifetimes.

without helium-3 fusion is NOT going to happen.Go mine it on the moon
without helium-3 each reaction produces 1 neutron ...

Nobody knows if we have to have He-3 for earthbound reactors to achieve over-unity reactions.

Fusion reactions are varied depending on fuel's used and the many ways they react with each other. D+D=T+n OR He-3+P OR He-4+y. D+T=He-4+P. D+Li-6=Be-8=2He-4.

And on and on, there are many many possible reaction chains starting with Deuterium. Manufacturing Li-6 is not difficult and using Li-6 to make Tritium is also simple, just pricey. Almost half of D+D fusions result in He-3, and all P+D fusions result in He-3, so claiming we have to mine He-3 from lunar regolith is simpley one more untrue claim. It might be cheaper than earthly manufacture of He-3, but I strongly doubt it.

[MonteQuest]

I am an irregular visitor here and I don't follow all threads, so it is unlikely that I would be the first to comment that this is a "loaded" question.

"When did you stop beating your wife?"...... "What, you haven't.....?'

Is it too simplistic to suggest that doing BOTH is an option? And better than either on it's own?

But that wasn't the point of the question. Which would you choose, given the choice between the two, was?

I would hazard a guess that nuclear power is not an option under any circumstances for many.

The poll was to reflect which way people are leaning with regards to options.

[chris-h]

And on and on, there are many many possible reaction chains starting with Deuterium.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneutronic_fusion

Only the helium 3 one is without any neutrons and possible to do.

[Tanada]

And on and on, there are many many possible reaction chains starting with Deuterium.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneutronic_fusion

Only the helium 3 one is without any neutrons and possible to do.

Why do you care if the reaction releases a proton or a neutron? It isn't hard to sheild yourself from neutrons, nor expensive when you are talking about a power plant size project.

[Dezakin]

Why do you care if the reaction releases a proton or a neutron? It isn't hard to sheild yourself from neutrons, nor expensive when you are talking about a power plant size project.

Size and efficiency. Most of the energy released from traditional nucler fusion is in very high energy neutrons, and so in order to convert that energy into electricity, you would have to have either giant moderator banks that rattle the neutrons around and feed some heat engine or the more popular methodr right now is making use of the extra high energy neutrons to drive fissions in a hybrid fusion-fission reactor. at the 10MeV level you can fission U238 itself without having to breed it into Pu239, and we make use of this in thermonuclear weapons today and in paper designs for fusion plants.

(The neutron bomb is just a regular hydrogen bomb without the uranium jacket around the pit)

If you have an aneutronic reaction you can do direct energy conversion with MHD generators, and leak a bit out the back if you want a fusion rocket.

If we were to make fusion reactors that were efficient today that ran on deuterium/tritium, I suspect we would need to make them very very large.

[seldom_seen]

Exactly the type of sophmoric response we've all come to expect from you. Congrats, you've inaugurated my ignore list!

fine! If that's the way you want it, I'm adding myself to the ignore list as well. I will no longer be able to read my own posts.

gosh, people on the interweb are so serious. you're going to need a since of humor in the times ahead, especially when you glow in the dark from all the ambient radiation.

[Tanada]

Why do you care if the reaction releases a proton or a neutron? It isn't hard to sheild yourself from neutrons, nor expensive when you are talking about a power plant size project.

Size and efficiency. Most of the energy released from traditional nucler fusion is in very high energy neutrons, and so in order to convert that energy into electricity, you would have to have either giant moderator banks that rattle the neutrons around and feed some heat engine or the more popular methodr right now is making use of the extra high energy neutrons to drive fissions in a hybrid fusion-fission reactor. at the 10MeV level you can fission U238 itself without having to breed it into Pu239, and we make use of this in thermonuclear weapons today and in paper designs for fusion plants.

(The neutron bomb is just a regular hydrogen bomb without the uranium jacket around the pit)

If you have an aneutronic reaction you can do direct energy conversion with MHD generators, and leak a bit out the back if you want a fusion rocket.

If we were to make fusion reactors that were efficient today that ran on deuterium/tritium, I suspect we would need to make them very very large.

I fail to see how a tank with a few thousand gallons of water, heavy water, or ammonia surrounding the reactor to absorb neutrons and convert their kinetic energy into thermal energy is such a big deal. it wouldn't be as efficient as MHD, but it certainly would be do-able provided you could get over unity energy from the fusion reaction to start with.

[FatherOfTwo]

FoT, can you list out the specific problems you would like to see addressed in a solution? Monte listed out the problems he would like to see addressed in a solution.

It’s quite simple. It must address global warming and it must not unduly exacerbate the economic (and related social, political etc) fallout of Peak Oil. The “solution” must be a graduated detox – not a rapid “cleansing”.

Monte believes expanding nuclear power will make things worse – that it’ll (as he posted a few pages ago) “delay the correction” – with the inference being that ultimately things will be worse. I find this a rather peculiar assertion because Monte is one of the most prolific posters about the severity of the Peak Oil issues coming down the pipe. In order for the rollout of nuclear to “delay the correction”, business would have to continue as normal, and that clearly goes against all of the other assertions (many of them very well made) in his other posts.

Let us all be very clear about what the ramifications are of not pursuing nuclear energy. The odds of us ever transitioning to any sort of a sustainable lifestyle are greatly reduced. Why? Because the larger the energy deficit, the worse the economic fallout, the worse the resultant social fallout, the political fallout, etc. etc. The more stress placed on us, the more likely we will be to act in desperation.

I cannot for the life of me figure out how that obvious fact is being ignored.

[Ludi]

FoT, can you list out the specific problems you would like to see addressed in a solution? Monte listed out the problems he would like to see addressed in a solution.

It’s quite simple. It must address global warming and it must not unduly exacerbate the economic (and related social, political etc) fallout of Peak Oil. The “solution” must be a graduated detox – not a rapid “cleansing”.

Monte believes expanding nuclear power will make things worse – that it’ll (as he posted a few pages ago) “delay the correction” – with the inference being that ultimately things will be worse. I find this a rather peculiar assertion because Monte is one of the most prolific posters about the severity of the Peak Oil issues coming down the pipe. In order for the rollout of nuclear to “delay the correction”, business would have to continue as normal, and that clearly goes against all of the other assertions (many of them very well made) in his other posts.

Let us all be very clear about what the ramifications are of not pursuing nuclear energy. The odds of us ever transitioning to any sort of a sustainable lifestyle are greatly reduced. Why? Because the larger the energy deficit, the worse the economic fallout, the worse the resultant social fallout, the political fallout, etc. etc. The more stress placed on us, the more likely we will be to act in desperation.

I cannot for the life of me figure out how that obvious fact is being ignored.

Thank you, FoT.

I'm not quite understanding this remark:

In order for the rollout of nuclear to “delay the correction”, business would have to continue as normal, and that clearly goes against all of the other assertions (many of them very well made) in his other posts.

If new nuclear plants are being built to take up the slack from depleting oil, in what way is that not "business as usual" since there would (theoretically) be no less available energy (it having been made up by nukes)?

There's certainly something I'm missing, but as I continually remind you all and myself, I'm easily confused.

[Daryl]

Today's USA Today on nuclear power planst.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/200 ... lant_x.htm

[Caoimhan]

Today's USA Today on nuclear power planst.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/200 ... lant_x.htm

I think it's particularly funny that they quote a flight attendant who will leave the area if the power plant is brought online.

She gets more radiation in a month doing her job than the average American living in the shadow of a reactor gets in a year.