Obama Speech

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Could they dispatch with all the annoying standing ovations? I had to turn it off.

I also couldn't stand to look at Nancy Pelosi the whole time. She is such a phony.

 

[Tricky]

Could they dispatch with all the annoying standing ovations? I had to turn it off.

I also couldn't stand to look at Nancy Pelosi the whole time. She is such a phony.

The applause was very annoying. I avoided looking at Pelosi by simply listening to it from another room (where I was involved with the more important job of squashing opposition to the JREF moderation team. )

 

[BPSCG]

It doesn't cost $15 billion a year to develop, no. It costs much, much, much more.

To give you an idea:

The two reactors Georgia Power is building are estimated to cost $6.4 billion, $2 billion of which Georgia Power is raising through a lovely rate increase we'll get to see next year.

$6.4 billion, and that's just to expand one existing plant. The original cost to build the plant was about $9 billion--and that was 20 years ago. FSM only knows what the cost to build a plant from scratch would be today.

Again...We're only talking about one plant.

So yeah...That's why not.

This suggests you're being overcharged.

Regarding bare plant costs, some recent figures apparently for overnight capital cost (or Engineering, Procurement and Construction - EPC - cost) quoted from reputable sources but not necessarily comparable are:
EdF Flamanville EPR: EUR 3.3 billion/$4.8 billion, so EUR 2000/kW or $2900/kW
Bruce Power Alberta 2x1100 MWe ACR, $6.2 billion, so $2800/kW
CGNPC Hongyanhe 4x1080 CPR-1000 $6.6 billion, so $1530/kW
AEO Novovronezh 6&7 2136 MWe net for $5 billion, so $2340/kW
KHNP Shin Kori 3&4 1350 MWe APR-1400 for $5 billion, so $1850/kW
FPL Turkey Point 2 x 1100 MWe AP1000 $2444 to $3582/kW
Progress Energy Levy county 2 x 1105 MWe AP1000 $3462/kW
NEK Belene 2x1000 MWe AES-92 EUR 3.9 billion (no first core), so EUR 1950 or $3050/kW
UK composite projection $2400/kW
NRG South Texas 2 x 1350 MWe ABWR $8 billion, so $2900/kW
CPI Haiyang 2 x 1100 MWe AP1000 $3.25 billion, so $1477/kW
CGNPC Ningde 4 x 1000 MWe CPR-1000 $7.145 billion, so $1786/kW
CNNC Fuqing 2 x 1000 MWe CPR-1000 (?) $2.8 billion, so $1400/kW
CGNPC Bailong/Fangchengang 2 x 1000 MWe CPR-1000 $3.1 bilion, so $1550/kW
CNNC Tianwan 3&4, 2 x 1060 MWe AES-91 $3.8 billion, so $1790/kW

These are for new plants. The bottom of the report shows that when everything is factored in, the cost of electricity from nuclear power is quite competetive with the cost of electricity from gas and coal, and much less expensive than wind.

And note Obama is talking about $15 billion to develop the technology forwind, solar, and biofuel, not $15 billion to actually build or plant anything. He's talking about R&D. If you think otherwise, try to find a statement anywhere of how many additional KwHs will be generated from this $15 billion "investment." When a normal person tells you that you should "invest" in something, you want an idea of what return you can expect. But, of course, politicians are not normal people. So how many more kilowatt-hours of electricity are we going to get for our $15 billion "investment?"

Anyone? Bueller?

 

[BPSCG]

Has anyone ever uttered the words, "This has to be done right, so I'm putting Joe Biden in charge," before?

 

[Upchurch]

I'm with Beeps on this one. It is flippin' moronic that we aren't taking advantage of modern nuclear power technology and still burning coal, of all things.

I'd also like to hear more about wind power, but only because I have a property that is being considered for up to three turbines.

 

[BPSCG]

Here's a flat-out lie:

For that same reason, we must also address the crushing cost of health care.
This is a cost that now causes a bankruptcy in America every thirty seconds.

There were about one million bankruptcies in America last year.

That works out to about one bankruptcy every 30 seconds.

And they were all caused by "the crushing cost of health care"?

I bet they weren't. How about things like people owning houses they couldn't afford, people losing jobs...?

There are good reasons to rework our health care system. But claiming it's causing all our bankruptcies is not one of them.

 

[BPSCG]

I'm with Beeps on this one.

In related news, Hell freezes over.

 

[Cleon]

This suggests you're being overcharged.

Actually, no. If you look carefully, only three of those plants are in the US--and the prices for those are comparable to Georgia's. The Levy plant, for example, is estimated to cost a total of $14 billion. FPL is estimating that the cost of their project will be between $12 and $25 billion. The Texas project, which is listed at $8 billion, is for the expansion of an existing plant, not for a new one.

The prices of plant construction outside the United States has little bearing on the situation, unless you want Obama to fund nuclear expansion in Asia. (I find that unlikely.)

The fact is, that if that $15 billion was thrown at nuclear energy expansion, it might create one new plant. Might.

These are for new plants. The bottom of the report shows that when everything is factored in, the cost of electricity from nuclear power is quite competetive with the cost of electricity from gas and coal, and much less expensive than wind.

Nuclear plants last for decades, so over time, yeah, the cost per Watt is going to be at least competitive with other sources.

But the startup costs are prohibitively expensive, and that's the part you're glossing over. That $15 billion simply would not do much of anything in terms of expanding nuclear power in the United States.

And note Obama is talking about $15 billion to develop wind, solar, and biofuel technology, not $15 billion to actually build or plant anything. He's talking about R&D.

Yup. And instead of R&D, you want to throw it at nuclear power expansion. Don't think I don't understand what you're saying.

$15 billion in R&D accomplishes a lot of R&D. $15 billion thrown at nuclear energy expansion amounts to doodly squat.

Don't misunderstand me. I'm all for expanding nuclear power. But throwing $15 billion at nuclear energy expansion now would be a massive waste of money, as reactor construction is so ungodly expensive.

It's putting the cart before the horse, basically. Before investing that kind of cash we need to look into ways to reduce the exorbitant cost of plant construction, and streamline the application/approval process (while still making safety the top priority).

Once that's done, then maybe that $15 billion would actually mean something. Until then, it's an inefficient use of taxpayer money.

If you think otherwise, try to find a statement anywhere of how many additional KwHs will be generated from this $15 billion "investment." When a normal person tells you that you should "invest" in something, you want an idea of what return you can expect. But, of course, politicians are not normal people. So how many more kilowatt-hours of electricity are we going to get for our $15 billion "investment?"

Anyone? Bueller?

You're arguing against a statement nobody has made.

 

[Cleon]

I'm with Beeps on this one. It is flippin' moronic that we aren't taking advantage of modern nuclear power technology and still burning coal, of all things.

Oh, I don't disagree at all.

But that $15 billion wouldn't accomplish much of anything. Nuclear plants are just too damned expensive, and take too long to get approval through various bureaucracies (both government and private). Until that is addressed, that $15 billion would just be wasted money.

 

[BPSCG]

$15 billion in R&D accomplishes a lot of R&D.

Are the lights in your house powered by electricity or by R&D?

$15 billion thrown at nuclear energy expansion amounts to doodly squat.

Fifteen billion would buy a lot more nuclear power were it not for regulatory ratcheting and regulatory turbulence.

Don't misunderstand me. I'm all for expanding nuclear power. But throwing $15 billion at nuclear energy expansion now would be a massive waste of money, as reactor construction is so ungodly expensive.

It's putting the cart before the horse, basically. Before investing that kind of cash we need to look into ways to reduce the exorbitant cost of plant construction, and streamline the application/approval process (while still making safety the top priority).

See regulatory ratcheting and regulatory turbulence above.

We can also stop reinventing the wheel every time we build a plant.

Non-uniform designs. The US Nuclear Power Industry never achieved economies of volume because every reactor design was different. Each developer put in their own tweaks and much of the equipment was custom built for each plant. This compounded the difficulties of obtaining NRC licensing approval since the NRC had to evaluate each individual design.

In contrast the French Nuclear Power program settled on a standard design which satisfied the French Regulatory Commission. Industry was able to achieve economies of volume in the production of plants and to complete construction on time.

You know you're in deep when you have to take engineering instruction from the French...

So how many more kilowatt-hours of electricity are we going to get for our $15 billion "investment?"

You're arguing against a statement nobody has made.

And to support that innovation, we will invest fifteen billion dollars a year to develop technologies like wind power and solar power...

So you agree with me that no one has told us how much power we can expect to get back from our "investment"?

 

[Cleon]

Are the lights in your house powered by electricity or by R&D?

...I'm not sure how your rhetorical question applies to anything I said.

Fifteen billion would buy a lot more nuclear power were it not for regulatory ratcheting and regulatory turbulence.

See regulatory ratcheting and regulatory turbulence above.

We can also stop reinventing the wheel every time we build a plant.

Really? Weird. You'd almost think I would've said something like this:

Don't misunderstand me. I'm all for expanding nuclear power. But throwing $15 billion at nuclear energy expansion now would be a massive waste of money, as reactor construction is so ungodly expensive.

It's putting the cart before the horse, basically. Before investing that kind of cash we need to look into ways to reduce the exorbitant cost of plant construction, and streamline the application/approval process (while still making safety the top priority).

Once that's done, then maybe that $15 billion would actually mean something. Until then, it's an inefficient use of taxpayer money.

Oh, right, I did. D'oh.

So you agree with me that no one has told us how much power we can expect to get back from our "investment"?

Investment in R&D is investment in R&D. You seem to think someone is pretending it's something else. I'm not. Obama isn't. So who is?

I'm honestly not sure what your point is, here. Do you think we shouldn't be investing in research and development of new technologies?

Spending that $15 billion on nuclear development would be an extremely bad investment. It simply wouldn't do anything to substantially expand our use of nuclear power.

A real, substantial government investment in nuclear power is something I would support. But first, it needs to involve legislation to streamline the regulatory process, making the construction of new nuclear facilities to be quicker and cheaper (again, while still making safety a top priority). Then we can talk financial investment.

 

[BPSCG]

A real, substantial government investment in nuclear power is something I would support. But first, it needs to involve legislation to streamline the regulatory process, making the construction of new nuclear facilities to be quicker and cheaper (again, while still making safety a top priority).

Well, how long should that take? After all, Congress managed to write a law that runs to something like 800 pages, that allocates about a billion dollars a page in spending, got it through a careful vetting and debate, ironed out the differences between the Senate and House versions, sent it to the President, and he signed it, all in a matter of a few weeks. Re-writing nuclear plant construction and licensing regulations should be child's play by comparison.

Then we can talk financial investment.

Stop using the word "investment" when talking about government spending. It's like talking about kosher shellfish - nobody knows what it means.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Oh, I don't disagree at all.

But that $15 billion wouldn't accomplish much of anything. Nuclear plants are just too damned expensive, and take too long to get approval through various bureaucracies (both government and private). Until that is addressed, that $15 billion would just be wasted money.

We should take a page from the French on this one. Say what you will about them, the French did nuclear power right from the beginning, and now they're reaping the benefits while we limp along.

 

[Cleon]

Well, how long should that take? After all, Congress managed to write a law that runs to something like 800 pages, that allocates about a billion dollars a page in spending, got it through a careful vetting and debate, ironed out the differences between the Senate and House versions, sent it to the President, and he signed it, all in a matter of a few weeks. Re-writing nuclear plant construction and licensing regulations should be child's play by comparison.

Nuclear power expansion is obviously no more a priority for the Obama administration than it was for Bush or Clinton.

Stop using the word "investment" when talking about government spending. It's like talking about kosher shellfish - nobody knows what it means.

Here you go.

 

[Cleon]

We should take a page from the French on this one. Say what you will about them, the French did nuclear power right from the beginning, and now they're reaping the benefits while we limp along.

Yep.

 

[BPSCG]

Nuclear power expansion is obviously no more a priority for the Obama administration than it was for Bush or Clinton.

Obviously, though it certainly should be, considering how much graver the situation is than it was 20 years ago.

Here you go.

Click on the photo of the product and you'll see it's "Imitation Crabmeat Stick."

Pretty much what politicians are talking about when they use the word "invest" - an imitation of the real thing.

 

[Cleon]

Obviously, though it certainly should be, considering how much graver the situation is than it was 20 years ago.

The energy situation has become increasingly serious over the decades. It didn't just "switch on" when Obama entered the White House.

But yes, it should be. Ideally, it should've been a priority back during the 90s, before the **** hit the fan.

Click on the photo of the product and you'll see it's "Imitation Crabmeat Stick."

Er, yes, I'm well aware of what goes into "Kosher crab." It was a bit of a joke.

Pretty much what politicians are talking about when they use the word "invest" - an imitation of the real thing.

No, this is completely incorrect. An investment is an investment, whether it's made by an individual, a corporation, a nonprofit, or a government.

 

[BPSCG]

No, this is completely incorrect. An investment is an investment, whether it's made by an individual, a corporation, a nonprofit, or a government.

An investment is typically made with the expectation of getting something of greater value in return. That greater value can typically be measured as a rate of return on investment, which your business finance 101 class abbreviated as ROI.

When politicians talk about investment, at best they talk the way Obama did last night, saying what the cost of something will be, but not even attempting to say what the return will be, in any measurable terms.

At the worst, they talk in woolly-brained, feel-good platitudes, like "We have to invest in our children's futures..." When a politician speaks of "investing," you should take it as a warning to hold on to your wallet until the politician can answer the question, "What's the ROI?" with a number followed by either a unit of currency or a percent sign.

Obama used the word "invest" or some variation of if thirteen times last night. He did not use the term "return on investment" even once.

Hold on to your wallet.

 

[portlandatheist]

A real, substantial government investment in nuclear power is something I would support. But first, it needs to involve legislation to streamline the regulatory process, making the construction of new nuclear facilities to be quicker and cheaper (again, while still making safety a top priority). Then we can talk financial investment.

If nuclear was a priority, Obama could do the things you mention like streamlining the regulatory process. In fact, he seems to understand that bureaucratic processes in place in the health care system are a major factor making it more expensive than it should be, seems like the same logic and conclusions could be made about nuclear energy. He also mentioned solar energy and the fact that although we were early leaders in R and D, Germany outstrips us with production and implementation but what Germany has done with solar power is a total waste and very expensive to the end consumer. There is nothing to envy there.

 

[toddjh]

An investment is typically made with the expectation of getting something of greater value in return.

An investment is made with the hope of getting something of greater value in return. Or, more specifically, the hope of getting something of sufficient value to offset the risk.

Your definition of "investment" seems to assume that it's possible to guarantee a specific return. Those types of investments do, of course, exist, but you're not going to like the rates you get most of the time.

You expect Obama to quantify the expected return in terms of dollars or percentages. Ignoring the fact that monetary return is not the only way an investment could pay off, do you demand the same thing when you play the market? Or do you take past performance as an imperfect indicator of potential future results? Past performance of R&D has been pretty good.