780 Million Dollars vs.15 Billion Dollars

Why Nuclear Electricity is Not the Answer

All the talk about building new nuclear plants may be nothing more than hot air. The current cost estimate for a major new coal fired plant in  is about 780 million dollars. Construction of a new nuclear plant of about the same output is estimated to be in the range of 15 billion dollars. In terms of the initial capital cost it is very difficult for nuclear power to compete with coal for electrical generation.  Any subsidies required to make nuclear power competitive would be in excess of the cost of offsetting their power generating capacity with wind, solar, and conservation technologies. 

The last nuclear power plants which were under construction in the United States, in Washington State, were decommissioned and sold for scrap after construction had begun. Not because of environmental problems but because escalating construction costs made it clear that the Washington utilities could earn a higher profit by promoting conservation than by selling nuclear generated electricity. In other words they discovered that they could make more money by giving away energy saving devices and construction subsidies than they could make by selling electricity generated in the new power plants. 

While we can expect subsidies for new technologies which will offset greenhouse gas producing coal plants, we should not expect the subsidies, and corresponding investment,  to go to nuclear until and unless it becomes clear that the other, less expensive technologies, including conservation, will meet our electricity needs. The math does not work.

I think that further proof of the direction this will take lies in Barack Obama's announcement that one of the first elements of the stimulus package will be a program to reduce energy usage in Federal buildings. 

Why Electricity Has Problems as a Car Fuel

The electric car has great potential, both in hybrid form and in the form of purely electric. However, remote generation is very wasteful. There are several reasons for this. First, very little of the energy released by burning, or fisioning, fuels in the power plant actually make it to the wheels of the car. In terms of raw energy, or btu's, for every 100 btu's of heat released from burning fuels in the power plant, only about 3 actually make it to the car in the way of usable energy. The rest is lost as waste heat and in transmission losses. Once in the car,  electricity is stored in batteries where it loses an additional 5% of its power for every day that it is stored. 

The original power source, if it is coal, is very cheap, but in addition to the lack of efficiency in the process of putting the power to the road, coal is a greenhouse gas producing fuel. The by-production of these gasses is much greater with coal based electricity, or even natural gas or oil generated electricity than with the direct burning of liquid fuels simply because so much more coal must be burned to generate the same amount of energy. 

Here is a comparison of the embedded energy from various fuels used in cars:

-Alcohol fuel: Approx. 0.7 btu's of fossil fuel energy required to create enough fuel to deliver 1 btu of energy to the fuel tank of a car.

-Gasoline: Approx 1.25 btu's of fossil fuel energy required to create enough fuel to deliver 1 btu of energy to the fuel tank of a car. Yes, it takes more energy to make alcohol and deliver it to a car than it does gasoline! 

-Electricity: Approx. 33 btu's of fossil fuel energy required to create enough fuel to deliver 1 btu of energy to the battery of a car. Nuclear generated electricity requires even more energy input because of the immense amount of waste heat that must be dissipated. 

The numbers above are fairly realistic. And some in the corn - alcohol fuel industry will tell you that alcohol fuel is bottled solar energy because of  the fact that corn and other vegetable fuel stocks are grown in the sun. If you would like to look at the numbers in more detail there is a good explanation available at the following link:  http://www.extension.iastate.edu/AGDM/articles/hof/HofJuly07.html  

Electric cars are the wave of the future, but we are not there yet. Coal generated electricity is dirty and inefficient. Nuclear is a better alternative in regards to green house gasses but it is much more expensive and there are still unresolved safety issues. Alternative technologies such as wind, tide, and fuel cell technologies are on the horizon but will not offset coal for some time to come. Hydro Power is maxed out in the United States. 

What this means in terms of overall efficiency and the production of greenhouse gasses is that for now, a highly efficient, non-plug-in hybrid vehicle is a better choice than a plug-in hybrid or an all electric vehicle. When and if electricity for cars can be generated by renewable, non fossil or fissionable fuels, then this formula may change. But for now, the environment and the economy are on the side of gasoline, diesel, natural gas and alcohol fuels.