Sometime back I wrote a piece on the reasons why nuclear energy is not a very good solution to our energy woes, though I do include the fact that keeping existing nuke plants going makes some sense.

Oil and coal industries are doing their best to deny global warming altogether. The nuke inudstry is taking another approach. They are embracing global warming completely...and claiming that ONLY nuclear power can save us. I was open to this, but skeptical, particularly since their claims tended to be way overblown. And, as I outlined in the article linked to above, nuke plants cannot even begin to be part of the solution, beyond what we already have, for another 5-10 or MORE years because that is how long it takes to build a new plant. We need faster solutions.

But now a new report has come out that shows that nuclear energy is just plain too expensive to be a vaible option. Again, existing plants are probably needed, but new plants just aren't worth it. I suggested that in the article above, and was slammed for it. But seems I was indeed right:

Generation costs/kWh for new nuclear (including fuel & O&M but not distribution to customers) are likely to be from 25 - 30 cents/kWh. This high cost may destroy the very demand the plant was built to serve. High electric rates may seriously impact utility customers and make nuclear utilities' service areas noncompetitive with other regions of the U.S. which are developing lower-cost electricity.

By comparison, here are estimates on other energy options:

Energy Efficiency:

This is the number one way we can lower our carbon footprints in a very affordable way.

Energy efficiency is the cheapest alternative. California has cut annual peak demand by 12 gw -- and total demand by about 40,000 gwh -- through a variety of energy efficiency programs over the past three decades. Over their lifetime, the cost of efficiency programs has averaged 2-3 cents per kw. If every American had the per capita electricity of California, we'd cut electricity use some 40 percent.

WIND:

Power purchase agreements for wind power are currently averaging 4.5 to 7.5 cents a kilowatt hour, including the federal wind tax credit, which is a fair comparison in the near term to new nuclear, which itself gets huge subsidies, loan guarantees, and liability protection (this does not include transmission costs). Even unsubsidized, and with the recent price rise that most power sources have seen, wind power is delivering power at 7.5 to 10. The country has thousands of gigawatts that could be delivered for under ten cents unsubsidized. Just 300 gw by 2030 would provide 20 percent of U.S. electricity. The world added 20 gw last year alone, with over 5 gw in this country.

Concentrated Solar Power:

Utilities in the Southwest are already contracting for power at 14 to 15 cents/kwh. The modeling for the CPUC puts California solar thermal at 12.7 to 13.6 cents/kwh (including six hours of storage capacity) -- and at similar or lower costs in the rest of the West.

Not sure why biofuels (methane generation from waste, biodiesel, etc.) aren't included in that list, buy in areas where waste is a big problem (e.g. large landfills, agricultural areas with large dairy or pig farms...those who have read Al Franken's disturbing description of pig shit geysers knows what I am talking about) converting the waste into useable methane is a good energy option with a smaller carbon footprint than oil and coal. And it helps with the waste problem.

Added together, efficiency, wind, solar, biofuels, geothermal and limited nuke plants are likely the way to go. Of them all, it seems nuke plants are among the most expensive.

I am sure the nuclear industry will claim the study isn't good, but what I am hearing is that it is a very good study. And it is just the latest in a whole list of problems with nuclear energy...and they still dismiss the waste issue as inconsequential, yet I recently heard a report that we are running out of safe space for nuclear waste (and I mean from nuke plants) so they are being stored in TEMPORARY, above ground tanks. I am sure those tanks are safe in the short term. But the fact that we have to use them indicates to me waste is and will continue to be a problem. Cost...large need for relying on taxpayer money (similar to if not more than wind and solar, mind you, if you include waste issues)...waste...security dangers...long time to completion of a plant...all add up to something that might be a PART of the solution, but sure looks like a piss poor thing to rely on for all our energy needs.