Big Green: NUCLEAR POWER IS NOT "GREEN"!

[Dean Sherwin]

1,000 megawatts - a typical hypothetical generating plant -   equals 
the savings from about 88 million compact fluorescent bulbs as 
against incandescent, assuming an average 75 watt bulb on for 20% of 
the time.  If each bulb costs $3.00  ( the actual price and quality 
seems to vary a good bit right now)(and the cost of installation and 
disposal were disregarded)  then the cost would be a mere $263 
million, a much better proposition than any generating 
plant.  However if we are talking about fluorescent light fixtures 
replaced with T-8 fixtures or the like by union electricians, the 
cost ratio would be much less good.  For 4-lamp fixtures on for 25% 
of the time, the 31 million light fixtures to save 1,000 MW  might 
set us back  $7.75 billion.
 From driving a Prius I know that the hybrid does not save that much 
compared to another compact car driven carefully.  If you calculate 
the energy savings by comparing the gas consumption of current 
hybrids to the overall American fleet mileage,  the numbers are going 
to be pretty murky.
As far as draft- proofing and all that, we absolutely should be doing 
it, of course, and it makes excellent sense.   However you would 
begin to see diminishing returns I suspect after the first generating 
station saved,  since there has to be a limited stock of older units 
in areas subject to significant heating loads.

The numbers quoted do seem to have some reality.  Presumably the 
Rocky Mountain Inst has something to do with them since it's 
quoted.  However the argument is pretty specious.  We will still 
need  power generation into the distant future and have to build new 
ones. It would be nice to retire some of those coal fired plants 
right now.  It would be more useful to compare the cost and 
acceptability of alternative energies.
There's lot's more that could be said but I wasted enough of my  & 
your time already...

Dean Sherwin



At 03:08 PM 5/28/2008, dlombard at earthlink.net wrote:

>",,,nuclear power is seven times less cost-effective at displacing 
>carbon than the cheapest fastest alterntative--energy efficiency, 
>according to studies by the Rocky Mountain Institute.  For example, 
>a nuclear power plant typically costs at least $2 billion or up to 
>$5 billion with overruns. IF THAT MONEY WERE SPENT TO INSULATE 
>DRAFTY BUILDINGS, PURCHASE HYBRID CARS OR INSTALL SUPEREFFICIENT 
>LIGHT BULBS AND CLOTHES DRYERS, IT WOULD LEAD TO SEVEN TIMES LESS 
>CARBON CONSUMPTION THAN IF THAT MONEY WERE SPENT ON A NUCLEAR POWER PLANT."
>
>