http://www.tulsaworld.com/NewsStory.asp?ID=061015_Fa_D1_Power8683
We were so lucky to have her dig in back in the '70's. Our premiere activist!
Would be nice to live in a state where electric prices weren't almost 100% tied to gas prices...
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
Would be nice to live in a state where electric prices weren't almost 100% tied to gas prices...
Huh? Does that mean you'd prefer a reactor in our back yard?
Yeah....nothing like the NIMBY crowd doing all the can to make sure development never happens....then turn around and grumble about the lack of development.
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
Would be nice to live in a state where electric prices weren't almost 100% tied to gas prices...
Huh? Does that mean you'd prefer a reactor in our back yard?
Yes. You can come put one in my backyard right now. Fossil Fuels are so Passe.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
Would be nice to live in a state where electric prices weren't almost 100% tied to gas prices...
Huh? Does that mean you'd prefer a reactor in our back yard?
Yes. You can come put one in my backyard right now. Fossil Fuels are so Passe.
Renewable energies may have there place, but when it comes to generating large amounts of energy clean from carbon, nuclear energy is the only choice.
si_uk_lon_ok... it is "their" not "there" and your opinion means nothing as your spelling indicates you are not smart just as the other unintelligent individuals here in support of nuclear energy.
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
si_uk_lon_ok... it is "their" not "there" and your opinion means nothing as your spelling indicates you are not smart just as the other unintelligent individuals here in support of nuclear energy.
I'm very sorry that I can't spell. The fact is I was never taught grammar or spelling at school and I still ended up going to a world class university. I may not spell well, that is my dyslexia, but I am not dumb.
Today at work I was reading the Institute of Chartered Engineers. Out of the 32 leaders of the institute, 31 supported nuclear power. But I guess engineers are unintelligent too.
I understand dyslexia. I got invited to a toga party and I took a goat.
(http://www.drlaniac.com/Images/2003_07/idiotNuclear.jpg)
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
si_uk_lon_ok... it is "their" not "there" and your opinion means nothing as your spelling indicates you are not smart just as the other unintelligent individuals here in support of nuclear energy.
Using that argument, you are also disqualified since you think "proportioanality" is a word.
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
si_uk_lon_ok... it is "their" not "there" and your opinion means nothing as your spelling indicates you are not smart just as the other unintelligent individuals here in support of nuclear energy.
Hooray for open mindedness!
quote:
Originally posted by wavoka
Yeah....nothing like the NIMBY crowd doing all the can to make sure development never happens....then turn around and grumble about the lack of development.
I prefer the BANANA brigades; 'build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything'.
Whether or not you agree with her position on nuclear power (I do), you have to give the lady credit for taking a stance and fighting for what she believed. She wasn't/isn't in this for fame or fortune, but for the health and safety of current and future generations. She sold or mortgaged nearly everything she had for money to fight a big corporation, something very few people would do, then or now. She has integrity and honesty, and I thank her very much.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve
Whether or not you agree with her position on nuclear power (I do), you have to give the lady credit for taking a stance and fighting for what she believed. She wasn't/isn't in this for fame or fortune, but for the health and safety of current and future generations. She sold or mortgaged nearly everything she had for money to fight a big corporation, something very few people would do, then or now. She has integrity and honesty, and I thank her very much.
While I believe in standing for what you believe to be right, I think she made a dreadful mistake. For every clean nuclear power station that we build, we do not have to build a dirty carbon based fossil fuel power station. I believe the health and wellbeing of future generations will be damaged more by the impact of carbon emissions (global warming) than the side effects of the nuclear industry.
The construction of more nuclear power stations would have had a dramatic impact on reducing the emissions produced, so in a way the campaign to stop Black Fox and similar projects have done more to harm our planet than good.
quote:
Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
quote:
Originally posted by Steve
Whether or not you agree with her position on nuclear power (I do), you have to give the lady credit for taking a stance and fighting for what she believed. She wasn't/isn't in this for fame or fortune, but for the health and safety of current and future generations. She sold or mortgaged nearly everything she had for money to fight a big corporation, something very few people would do, then or now. She has integrity and honesty, and I thank her very much.
While I believe in standing for what you believe to be right, I think she made a dreadful mistake. For every clean nuclear power station that we build, we do not have to build a dirty carbon based fossil fuel power station. I believe the health and wellbeing of future generations will be damaged more by the impact of carbon emissions (global warming) than the side effects of the nuclear industry.
The construction of more nuclear power stations would have had a dramatic impact on reducing the emissions produced, so in a way the campaign to stop Black Fox and similar projects have done more to harm our planet than good.
The point of my comment is not whether she is right or wrong, but that she had the guts to stand up for what she believes, for the long haul, and that she risked everything at her disposal to do it.
Nuclear power plants are not as "clean" as some would believe, producing lethal waste products that take tens of thousands of years to decay. I also think it is important that nearly all accidents at nuclear power plants have been caused by human error. There is no way to eliminate that element. The potential damage from an accident at a nuclear plant is a million times greater that the potential threats from fossil fuel plants.
What we really should be doing is decreasing consumption, encouraging conservation, wind and water power, and getting people to quit using so much damn energy, especially we spoiled, wasteful U.S. residents.
I think she got a big boost in defeating the project because the power was purportedly going to be sold to Texas, I think around the Dallas area. Whether that was true or not, I remember that being told to me. If the power was meant to be used for Northeast Oklahoma, you have to wonder if people may have been more behind it?
I live in Inola and would have welcomed Blackfox. Where I live now I would be less than ten miles to the power plant, I would also probably be working there making a lot more money than I am making now. Besides that my kids would be attending the richest school district in the state.
Oklahoma, according to the article, is 5th in the nation in wind power generators being installed. That's a great statistic and it would be great to see at least over half of our state's power output come from either wind or hydroelectric energy in the next decade.
quote:
Originally posted by moosedaddy
I live in Inola and would have welcomed Blackfox. Where I live now I would be less than ten miles to the power plant, I would also probably be working there making a lot more money than I am making now. Besides that my kids would be attending the richest school district in the state.
In my opinion, this comment speaks volumes for how screwed up society and our priorities have become. Who cares about the radioactive waste, just ship it off to Colorado or Idaho. Out of sight, out of mind. Who cares about the safety issues and potential threats to lives of large populations, as long as I have a fat paycheck and my kids go to a cushy luxury school with NFL-quality atheletic facilities. Tell that to the thousands of Chernobyl victims. And the previous poster was correct, the power from Black Fox was to be primarily sold out of state. If Texas needs more electricity, let them build their own nuclear plants.
The "power would've been sold to texas" comment shows a lack of understanding of how our electric grid works. It's like complaining because the petroleum refined here is burned in out-of-state cars. Sure, at the time, demand was higher in texas but the $$$ is in generation. Then, once demand raised in Oklahoma, they would have used more from Black Fox. Or maybe you missed the part where PSO is starting up three generation projects in Oklahoma right now. Whereas we could've been raking in the profits off of that capacity for decades.
Ralph Nader stood up for what he believed in and he killed a car which would've made a huge POSITIVE impact in current automotive design.
Go team!
quote:
Originally posted by SXSW
Oklahoma, according to the article, is 5th in the nation in wind power generators being installed. That's a great statistic and it would be great to see at least over half of our state's power output come from either wind or hydroelectric energy in the next decade.
That's great news! Probably a "stinky" job, but Methane Gas is a renewable energy option as well.
Attachment is from the EPA website.
http://www.epa.gov/methane/index.html
The Chernobyl comment tells me how uninformed most people are around here. There are no nuclear power plants of that design in the United States. Also the waste (spent fuel rods) are stored on site until they can be safely shipped, and why not store the waste in an underground mine hundreds of feet underground.
QuoteOriginally posted by moosedaddy
The Chernobyl comment tells me how uninformed most people are around here. There are no nuclear power plants of that design in the United States. Also the waste (spent fuel rods) are stored on site until they can be safely shipped, and why not store the waste in an underground mine hundreds of feet underground.
The much opposed underground storage area is already underway in Nevada. All of this Nuclear Power plant business just seems like a big accident waiting to happen - Three Mile Island? Leakage from underground storage into some water supply years down the line is another concern.
quote:
Originally posted by okieinla
QuoteOriginally posted by moosedaddy
The Chernobyl comment tells me how uninformed most people are around here. There are no nuclear power plants of that design in the United States. Also the waste (spent fuel rods) are stored on site until they can be safely shipped, and why not store the waste in an underground mine hundreds of feet underground.
The much opposed underground storage area is already underway in Nevada. All of this Nuclear Power plant business just seems like a big accident waiting to happen - Three Mile Island? Leakage from underground storage into some water supply years down the line is another concern.
Dozens of people are hurt and/or killed in power plants around the world every day and you want to quote a power plant that shutdown with no injuries and no fatalities?
Dozens of people are hurt and/or killed in power plants around the world every day and you want to quote a power plant that shutdown with no injuries and no fatalities?
[/quote]
There was still an accident & a very expensive clean up. I wouldn't want to live there or close by for that matter.
There is a documentary that was made in 1993 called "Three Mile Island Revisited". Here's a brief excerpt -
"...Through the testimony of area residents and scientific experts, the documentary presents compelling evidence that cancer deaths and birth defects increased in the area surrounding the Pennsylvania plant. The video reveals that the utility which owns the nuclear plant has been quietly awarding damages to hundreds of local residents who have brought suits, despite its insistence that no one was harmed..."
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by okieinla
QuoteOriginally posted by moosedaddy
The Chernobyl comment tells me how uninformed most people are around here. There are no nuclear power plants of that design in the United States. Also the waste (spent fuel rods) are stored on site until they can be safely shipped, and why not store the waste in an underground mine hundreds of feet underground.
The much opposed underground storage area is already underway in Nevada. All of this Nuclear Power plant business just seems like a big accident waiting to happen - Three Mile Island? Leakage from underground storage into some water supply years down the line is another concern.
Dozens of people are hurt and/or killed in power plants around the world every day and you want to quote a power plant that shutdown with no injuries and no fatalities?
About ten years after the defeat of Black Fox an executve with PSO told me it was a blessing. He asserted the numbers never added up and it would have been a money loser. They knew that but continued to fight for it as they knew it eventually would be the future of power and they wanted to set a precedent. He seemed to think the ratepayers would have bailed it out.
quote:
Originally posted by moosedaddy
The Chernobyl comment tells me how uninformed most people are around here. There are no nuclear power plants of that design in the United States. Also the waste (spent fuel rods) are stored on site until they can be safely shipped, and why not store the waste in an underground mine hundreds of feet underground.
I don't care if the Chernobyl plant was a 1956 design or a 2006 design, and if there are no plants of this design in the U.S. is not important. The facts are that the Chernobyl disaster was caused foremost by human error, not by plant design. Nuclear plants today may be highly computerized and automated, but computers are programmed by human beings and operated by human beings, and humans are subject to mistakes. The consequences are much too great for me to ever accept a nuclear power facility in Oklahoma.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
The "power would've been sold to texas" comment shows a lack of understanding of how our electric grid works. It's like complaining because the petroleum refined here is burned in out-of-state cars. Sure, at the time, demand was higher in texas but the $$$ is in generation. Then, once demand raised in Oklahoma, they would have used more from Black Fox. Or maybe you missed the part where PSO is starting up three generation projects in Oklahoma right now. Whereas we could've been raking in the profits off of that capacity for decades.
Ralph Nader stood up for what he believed in and he killed a car which would've made a huge POSITIVE impact in current automotive design.
Go team!
Conventional electricity generation and petroleum refining does pose some risks to the employees and the enviornment, but not close to the risks involved with nuclear power generation. I couldn't care less if gasoline refined in Tulsa is burned in a car in New York. The risks are not the same as those with nuclear power. Your comment suggests that the risks be damned, if the potential $$$ are good. PSO does not exist to make $$$ but to provide safe, reliable electric power to the citizens of Oklahoma, with a reasonable profit guaranteed a utility monopoly. We have done just fine since 1973 without Black Fox, and I believe we will do just fine for the long term future in Oklahoma without a nuclear plant.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
The "power would've been sold to texas" comment shows a lack of understanding of how our electric grid works. It's like complaining because the petroleum refined here is burned in out-of-state cars. Sure, at the time, demand was higher in texas but the $$$ is in generation. Then, once demand raised in Oklahoma, they would have used more from Black Fox. Or maybe you missed the part where PSO is starting up three generation projects in Oklahoma right now. Whereas we could've been raking in the profits off of that capacity for decades.
Ralph Nader stood up for what he believed in and he killed a car which would've made a huge POSITIVE impact in current automotive design.
Go team!
Conventional electricity generation and petroleum refining does pose some risks to the employees and the enviornment, but not close to the risks involved with nuclear power generation. I couldn't care less if gasoline refined in Tulsa is burned in a car in New York. The risks are not the same as those with nuclear power. Your comment suggests that the risks be damned, if the potential $$$ are good. PSO does not exist to make $$$ but to provide safe, reliable electric power to the citizens of Oklahoma, with a reasonable profit guaranteed a utility monopoly. We have done just fine since 1973 without Black Fox, and I believe we will do just fine for the long term future in Oklahoma without a nuclear plant.
I don't think the risks to the environment of continued fossil fuel power stations can even be quantified. While nuclear power did lead to Chernobyl, a soviet era human error, continued fossil fuel burning is likely to lead to the loss of south pacific islands, Bangladesh and thousands of square miles of other low lying areas as well as levels of climate change we can't even fathom.
Nuclear power is the cheap reliable clean energy we ahve been looking for. If we want to become a greener society we will end up using more electricity to power things such as cars or create hydrogen as an alternative fuel source. This move away from petrol would be meaningless if we continue to generate power from dirty sources.
quote:
Originally posted by okieinla
Dozens of people are hurt and/or killed in power plants around the world every day and you want to quote a power plant that shutdown with no injuries and no fatalities?
There was still an accident & a very expensive clean up. I wouldn't want to live there or close by for that matter.
There is a documentary that was made in 1993 called "Three Mile Island Revisited". Here's a brief excerpt -
"...Through the testimony of area residents and scientific experts, the documentary presents compelling evidence that cancer deaths and birth defects increased in the area surrounding the Pennsylvania plant. The video reveals that the utility which owns the nuclear plant has been quietly awarding damages to hundreds of local residents who have brought suits, despite its insistence that no one was harmed..."
[/quote]
I'm sure 4 out of 5 dentists agree. Doesn't match the scientific fact that the radiation level was around that of an x-ray and at that level, very limited in range. It is nowhere near chernobyl which was grossly mismanaged and rendered hundreds of square miles worthless. It's like the adage that plane travel is safer than car travel. Nuclear plants have had two failures in their lifetime and the fact Chernobyl wasn't worse is a miracle given the management of the plant.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve
Conventional electricity generation and petroleum refining does pose some risks to the employees and the enviornment, but not close to the risks involved with nuclear power generation.
Risks, yes. Reality, not so much. Thousands more people have been injured, killed, or had their health otherwise compromised by conventional plants than nuclear.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve
I couldn't care less if gasoline refined in Tulsa is burned in a car in New York.
Then why do you car if electricity made in Tulsa is used elsewhere?
quote:
Originally posted by Steve
PSO does not exist to make $$$ but to provide safe, reliable electric power to the citizens of Oklahoma, with a reasonable profit guaranteed a utility monopoly.
You make me giggle.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve
We have done just fine since 1973 without Black Fox, and I believe we will do just fine for the long term future in Oklahoma without a nuclear plant.
Based on your vast experience in the electric utility market?
I'm not saying wind, hydro, or any of those are bad. But unfortunately you are talking just a handful of megawatts per unit as opposed to the 1,000+ from a fission reactor plant.
Do you want to tell people like this you'd rather rely on old coal plants than run off clean nuclear ones?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire,_Ohio
Keep in mind that the effects in Cheshire were caused by properly INSTALLING pollution controls.
Okay, since I work in the steam business, I have to chime in. For the most part, the coal and gas-fired plants we have in the United States have very clean emissions. We have come a long way since the photos of smoke stacks bellowing out acrid black smoke in the early 1970's. Cheshire is an example of pollution control technologies being installed or operated improperly.
I'm intrigued with the concept of nuclear power, simply for the fact that the fuel lasts a very long time, and you can generate a lot more steam with a given volume of nuclear fuel than fossil fuel. But as far as being cheaper- it's debatable. There are a lot of expensive regulations and safety protocol that go with nuclear power.
The "what-if's" bothered me with Black Fox. When you hear the word "oops" at a coal fired plant, it might injure or kill people on-site at the plant. When you hear it at a nuke site, the implications are much broader.
This web site is a pretty chilling account of Chernobyl (it takes awhile to get through this web site, it's huge and maintained by an "amateur"). My mental picture of the aftermath was nothing close to the hard reality of what really happened to that area:
Chernobyl Motorcycling (//%22http://www.angelfire.com/extreme4/kiddofspeed/chapter1.html%22)
The Soviet's grasp of technology was always reputed to be on par with America's during the cold war. Comparatively, they were still in the stone ages and likely should not have been dabbling in nuclear power.
With technology and knowledge that we have today, nuclear plants don't scare me as much as they used to. But as long as human judgement must be involved in the operation of them, there will always be the possibility for a disaster. I'm not a "radical anti-nuke", I just believe there are other sources of energy which are more cost-effective and safe.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Okay, since I work in the steam business, I have to chime in. For the most part, the coal and gas-fired plants we have in the United States have very clean emissions. We have come a long way since the photos of smoke stacks bellowing out acrid black smoke in the early 1970's. Cheshire is an example of pollution control technologies being installed or operated improperly.
I'm intrigued with the concept of nuclear power, simply for the fact that the fuel lasts a very long time, and you can generate a lot more steam with a given volume of nuclear fuel than fossil fuel. But as far as being cheaper- it's debatable. There are a lot of expensive regulations and safety protocol that go with nuclear power.
The "what-if's" bothered me with Black Fox. When you hear the word "oops" at a coal fired plant, it might injure or kill people on-site at the plant. When you hear it at a nuke site, the implications are much broader.
This web site is a pretty chilling account of Chernobyl (it takes awhile to get through this web site, it's huge and maintained by an "amateur"). My mental picture of the aftermath was nothing close to the hard reality of what really happened to that area:
Chernobyl Motorcycling (//%22http://www.angelfire.com/extreme4/kiddofspeed/chapter1.html%22)
The Soviet's grasp of technology was always reputed to be on par with America's during the cold war. Comparatively, they were still in the stone ages and likely should not have been dabbling in nuclear power.
With technology and knowledge that we have today, nuclear plants don't scare me as much as they used to. But as long as human judgement must be involved in the operation of them, there will always be the possibility for a disaster. I'm not a "radical anti-nuke", I just believe there are other sources of energy which are more cost-effective and safe.
I saw the chernobyl site before. Very impressive stuff.
Most coal is better now mainly because we truck in West Virginia's low-sulphur coal, but the Cheshire story I posted was only a few years old.
There are more people die per kilowatt hour from a coal powered plant than from nuclear. I guess to get an accurate feeling of how it feels living near a nuclear power plant all we need to do is travel about 200 miles to Russelville, AR.
One of the main reason Blackfox was not built was not money, or where the power was going to be sold, or even protest from people who are afraid of nuclear energy. The main reason is the geologic fault line which would have been directly beneath one of the reactors.
When I hear anti nuclear power discussions I am reminded of a quote ( I do not remember who said it). The United States was introduced to nuclear power thru the atomic bomb, If we would have been introduced to electricity thru the electric chair we would probably all be sitting in the dark.
Also for all of the people worrying about nuclear accidents in your back yard, do you fly? If so are you terrified about the plane crashing.
More people die every year from radioactive gas (natural Radon) than from the radioactivity of all of the shipments of radioactive material.
Well, I think I gooofed starting this thread. I had forgotten how little the posties on this forum care about the air they suck here in Tulsa......
quote:
Originally posted by moosedaddy
There are more people die per kilowatt hour from a coal powered plant than from nuclear. I guess to get an accurate feeling of how it feels living near a nuclear power plant all we need to do is travel about 200 miles to Russelville, AR.
Could you quote where that assertion comes from? Seems like playing with stats.
One of the main reason Blackfox was not built was not money, or where the power was going to be sold, or even protest from people who are afraid of nuclear energy. The main reason is the geologic fault line which would have been directly beneath one of the reactors.
Once again, says who? I'm sure it was a factor and maybe the strongest but the protests and the poor economics were part of its demise.
When I hear anti nuclear power discussions I am reminded of a quote ( I do not remember who said it). The United States was introduced to nuclear power thru the atomic bomb, If we would have been introduced to electricity thru the electric chair we would probably all be sitting in the dark.
Clever remark but not truthful. Edison argued hard that a/c electricity was dangerous to the public. He and many others lobbied for d/c battery power. The public was not scared and trusted its contemporary "experts".
Also for all of the people worrying about nuclear accidents in your back yard, do you fly? If so are you terrified about the plane crashing.
I don't fly. Really have no dog in this race either, but the correlation isn't too good here. A plane crash has taken as many as 3000 or so lives when combined with a high rise. How many would a similar catastrophe pulled off by the same morons have killed?
More people die every year from radioactive gas (natural Radon) than from the radioactivity of all of the shipments of radioactive material.
Wow, really? Where are those facts? And are you comparing all the buildings during the current century vs all of the shipments to/from a few plants since the fifties? Yeah, I could see that. Even though we have no idea where and how long radon has been killing people. Going to have to be better arguments than I have seen here before I sign on for the nuclear solution. But I'm open to change.
Nuclear energy? Simple, the risks outweigh the benefits.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
Nuclear energy? Simple, the risks outweigh the benefits.
Not really. Whats the risks of not reducing our carbon emissions? Can we even begin to measure the potential impacts of increased global warming?
Originally posted by moosedaddy
There are more people die per kilowatt hour from a coal powered plant than from nuclear. I guess to get an accurate feeling of how it feels living near a nuclear power plant all we need to do is travel about 200 miles to Russelville, AR.
Could you quote where that assertion comes from? Seems like playing with stats.
One of the main reason Blackfox was not built was not money, or where the power was going to be sold, or even protest from people who are afraid of nuclear energy. The main reason is the geologic fault line which would have been directly beneath one of the reactors.
Once again, says who? I'm sure it was a factor and maybe the strongest but the protests and the poor economics were part of its demise.
When I hear anti nuclear power discussions I am reminded of a quote ( I do not remember who said it). The United States was introduced to nuclear power thru the atomic bomb, If we would have been introduced to electricity thru the electric chair we would probably all be sitting in the dark.
Clever remark but not truthful. Edison argued hard that a/c electricity was dangerous to the public. He and many others lobbied for d/c battery power. The public was not scared and trusted its contemporary "experts".
Also for all of the people worrying about nuclear accidents in your back yard, do you fly? If so are you terrified about the plane crashing.
I don't fly. Really have no dog in this race either, but the correlation isn't too good here. A plane crash has taken as many as 3000 or so lives when combined with a high rise. How many would a similar catastrophe pulled off by the same morons have killed?
More people die every year from radioactive gas (natural Radon) than from the radioactivity of all of the shipments of radioactive material.
Wow, really? Where are those facts? And are you comparing all the buildings during the current century vs all of the shipments to/from a few plants since the fifties? Yeah, I could see that. Even though we have no idea where and how long radon has been killing people. Going to have to be better arguments than I have seen here before I sign on for the nuclear solution. But I'm open to change.
1. About deaths per kilowatt hour, have you ever heard of "black lung".
2. I heard about the fault line from the man who did the survey of the area. I went to school with his kids.
3. Yes Edison did argue that "his" DC power was much safer than AC power. and people did protest the safety of electricity when there was a death of a lineman from accidental electrocution.
4. I do not recall where I heard the stats about Radon, but it was when I was working at a Uranium processing facility.
I do know radioactivity is dangerous, but a coal powered plant releases more radioactivity than a nuclear power plant. With todays NRC regulation a nuclear power plant will never be cost effective, with todays technology I think our current best bet is natural gas.
The cost argument of nuclear energy is a little unfair. It tends to reflect how energy is traded now a days. It rewards sources of power that can hold back their energy and only sell when the price reaches a high. Examples of this can be hydroelectricity which can provide instant power by releasing water. Unfortunately nuclear power can't sell electricity like this, it generates vast quantities of power fairly cheaply and continuously. This means that it is in a poor place to take position of short time highs in the market.
There is a very high cost to building nuclear plants to today's standards, and personnel costs would be somewhat higher due to the level of degreed expertise needed to operate a nuclear plant vs. a hydro-electric or steam plant. I just don't know that the profitability is there per KWH produced, based on the construction and safety standards which are in place today.
Forgive my relative ignorance of how you can operate a nuclear plant, but can you not stage the units, like you can with coal or NG plants to match demand? IOW, start and shut down units at a plant as demand is indicated like they do with boilers at coal or NG facilities?
This is a little of my understanding of how the grids work:
We do a lot of repair work for Stillwater Power which is a small NG powered peak demand plant that sits idle most of the year. It was explained to me by one of the operators that they are on the GRDA grid. When GRDA tells them to come on line, they do- usually operating during the months of May to Sept as needed. It is also used as a hedge for Stillwater residents to keep their electrical costs in check.
Prime Energy in Tulsa specializes in alternative fuel systems for co-gen plants. We've worked with them on some projects in the past. They have worked on technology which has involved biomass reactors, burning rice chaff, sugar cane waste, hog fuel, etc. Basically any sort of natural resource a third world country may have plenty of as an agricultural by-product. Technology like that is bringing relatively inexpensive electricity to remote areas by doing nothing more than burning their waste.