Rod Adams's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/176866/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/154915/comments?source=feed#comment-624167 624167
If commercial nuclear plants cannot respond to load changes it is NOT because they are nuclear, but because they are very large and designed to be operated with only slowly changing power levels. Fission itself is EXTREMELY responsive. Been there, seen that.

Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights


On Aug 10 10:09 AM John Petersen wrote:

> Another great article that only leaves one bone to pick. Coal and
> nuclear have to run 24/7 at stable levels or they break. NG can ramp
> up or down at the whim of the operator. To maximize the efficiency
> of base-load coal and nuclear, we need to get to cost effective energy
> storage so that none of the excess electricity is sent to ground.
> Then we can rely on a combination of NG, wind, solar and more storage
> to take care of daily and seasonal power demand peaks. Regardless,
> we need every tool in the box and a number that have not been invented
> yet. Thanks for taking a rational macro approach to a problem that
> most want to ignore.]]> Mon, 10 Aug 2009 20:12:30 -0400
If commercial nuclear plants cannot respond to load changes it is NOT because they are nuclear, but because they are very large and designed to be operated with only slowly changing power levels. Fission itself is EXTREMELY responsive. Been there, seen that.

Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights


On Aug 10 10:09 AM John Petersen wrote:

> Another great article that only leaves one bone to pick. Coal and
> nuclear have to run 24/7 at stable levels or they break. NG can ramp
> up or down at the whim of the operator. To maximize the efficiency
> of base-load coal and nuclear, we need to get to cost effective energy
> storage so that none of the excess electricity is sent to ground.
> Then we can rely on a combination of NG, wind, solar and more storage
> to take care of daily and seasonal power demand peaks. Regardless,
> we need every tool in the box and a number that have not been invented
> yet. Thanks for taking a rational macro approach to a problem that
> most want to ignore.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/154915/comments?source=feed#comment-622263 622263
Certainly, some of that money is going to pay off the construction loans on a project that was completed, licensed and tested but never operated, but a major portion of the bill goes to pay for diesel fuel and natural gas for the generators that are running 24 x 7 to supply the load. The revenue for the fossil fuel suppliers that are providing what Shoreham could have provided is nearly $2 million per day, more than $500 million per year.

I have not ever done any research on Cuomo to find out who supports his campaigns or where his money comes from, but I can tell you lots about other liberals - starting with the natural gas industry supported Lyndon Johnson, and the coal industry supported Robert Byrd.

By the way, there are also plenty of conservatives who owe a lot to the fossil fuel industry who have never done any favors for nuclear energy. The first Atomic Age started grinding to a halt when the Atomic Energy Commission got split into a regulator that had no mission of ensuring reliable energy and a research and development agency whose leaders were conflicted by a need to support all energy sources. That happened during the Nixon years. Ever notice how many nuclear plants got built during 12 years of Reagan-Bush the First or 8 years of Bush the Second? Rhetoric does not count as support - actions speak louder.

Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights

On Aug 09 01:44 PM Trane250 wrote:

> Rod Adams wrote, "My discovery is that the people who sell coal,
> oil and natural gas are the natural enemies of abundant nuclear energy
> - they are the ones who lose market share, revenue and power when
> nuclear energy plants succeed."
>
> You're wrong. The enemies of nuclear power are the ultra liberals.
> The Shoreham nuclear plant on Long Island is the perfect example.
> Long Island Lighting spent 21 years (from 1966 to 1987) and 6 billion
> dollars planning and constructing Shoreham. Shoreham was 100% complete
> and partially loaded with fuel when Mario Cuomo had it shut down
> and dismantled. Shoreham would have supplied Long Island with abundant
> and clean and inexpensive nuclear energy. But Cuomo claimed that
> Long Island could not be evacuated in case of an accident. What happened?
> Long Island Lighting went bankrupt and was taken over by a state
> authority. The folks who live on the island pay some of the highest
> electric rates in the nation.]]> Sun, 09 Aug 2009 15:11:10 -0400
Certainly, some of that money is going to pay off the construction loans on a project that was completed, licensed and tested but never operated, but a major portion of the bill goes to pay for diesel fuel and natural gas for the generators that are running 24 x 7 to supply the load. The revenue for the fossil fuel suppliers that are providing what Shoreham could have provided is nearly $2 million per day, more than $500 million per year.

I have not ever done any research on Cuomo to find out who supports his campaigns or where his money comes from, but I can tell you lots about other liberals - starting with the natural gas industry supported Lyndon Johnson, and the coal industry supported Robert Byrd.

By the way, there are also plenty of conservatives who owe a lot to the fossil fuel industry who have never done any favors for nuclear energy. The first Atomic Age started grinding to a halt when the Atomic Energy Commission got split into a regulator that had no mission of ensuring reliable energy and a research and development agency whose leaders were conflicted by a need to support all energy sources. That happened during the Nixon years. Ever notice how many nuclear plants got built during 12 years of Reagan-Bush the First or 8 years of Bush the Second? Rhetoric does not count as support - actions speak louder.

Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights

On Aug 09 01:44 PM Trane250 wrote:

> Rod Adams wrote, "My discovery is that the people who sell coal,
> oil and natural gas are the natural enemies of abundant nuclear energy
> - they are the ones who lose market share, revenue and power when
> nuclear energy plants succeed."
>
> You're wrong. The enemies of nuclear power are the ultra liberals.
> The Shoreham nuclear plant on Long Island is the perfect example.
> Long Island Lighting spent 21 years (from 1966 to 1987) and 6 billion
> dollars planning and constructing Shoreham. Shoreham was 100% complete
> and partially loaded with fuel when Mario Cuomo had it shut down
> and dismantled. Shoreham would have supplied Long Island with abundant
> and clean and inexpensive nuclear energy. But Cuomo claimed that
> Long Island could not be evacuated in case of an accident. What happened?
> Long Island Lighting went bankrupt and was taken over by a state
> authority. The folks who live on the island pay some of the highest
> electric rates in the nation.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/154915/comments?source=feed#comment-621843 621843
The successful opposition to nuclear power plant development really comes from those wealthy and powerful people who stand to lose money if nuclear energy takes market share from fossil fuels. They have worked very hard to raise as many barriers to entry as possible. They know that time is money, so they work to make it take a LONG time to get permission to build. They know that funding is difficult when costs are uncertain, so they helped the Reagan Administration write rules requiring that applicants have to pay the government for the cost of reviewing the required applications and they makes sure that the agency refuses to provide a cost estimate. (Regan's henchmen called those rules "user fees".)

They know that people are worried about costs, so they ask their paid thought leaders to continue to bring up the fact that nuclear plants have high up front costs. They also have worked long and hard to implant the idea of "the economy of scale" into college textbooks to encourage young nuclear engineering students to focus only on "extra large" plants that can only be used by a very small slice of the power consumption market.

My discovery is that the people who sell coal, oil and natural gas are the natural enemies of abundant nuclear energy - they are the ones who lose market share, revenue and power when nuclear energy plants succeed. As you stated, France no longer cowers when OPEC or Russia threaten oil or gas supplies - how do you think that makes OPEC and Russia feel about French nuclear energy strength?

Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights]]> Sun, 09 Aug 2009 10:54:28 -0400
The successful opposition to nuclear power plant development really comes from those wealthy and powerful people who stand to lose money if nuclear energy takes market share from fossil fuels. They have worked very hard to raise as many barriers to entry as possible. They know that time is money, so they work to make it take a LONG time to get permission to build. They know that funding is difficult when costs are uncertain, so they helped the Reagan Administration write rules requiring that applicants have to pay the government for the cost of reviewing the required applications and they makes sure that the agency refuses to provide a cost estimate. (Regan's henchmen called those rules "user fees".)

They know that people are worried about costs, so they ask their paid thought leaders to continue to bring up the fact that nuclear plants have high up front costs. They also have worked long and hard to implant the idea of "the economy of scale" into college textbooks to encourage young nuclear engineering students to focus only on "extra large" plants that can only be used by a very small slice of the power consumption market.

My discovery is that the people who sell coal, oil and natural gas are the natural enemies of abundant nuclear energy - they are the ones who lose market share, revenue and power when nuclear energy plants succeed. As you stated, France no longer cowers when OPEC or Russia threaten oil or gas supplies - how do you think that makes OPEC and Russia feel about French nuclear energy strength?

Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/114115/comments?source=feed#comment-352160 352160
It is a fascinating opportunity, but one that must be approached with a thirst for details.

Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights

]]> Sun, 11 Jan 2009 07:07:46 -0500
It is a fascinating opportunity, but one that must be approached with a thirst for details.

Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/72002/comments?source=feed#comment-149219 149219 I remain a shareholder and a fanboy - though I do not really qualify as a boy since I am nearing 50.]]> Fri, 11 Apr 2008 16:47:39 -0400 I remain a shareholder and a fanboy - though I do not really qualify as a boy since I am nearing 50.]]>