The graphs are from a report from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the US Government.

http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/ser...idy2/pdf/execsum.pdf

Sorry I don't have anything newer. I would expect the renewable subsidies to have increased greatly after Obama's green energy spending orgy of 2009 however.
--
I find nuclear to be the only high power source of dependable power that is readily expandable and environmentally friendly.

Coal has trace radioactive elements in it. When you burn coal, you still have to deal with some radioactive pollution. Long term storage in dry mines underground in a ceramic pellet seems reasonable to me. Much much more than shooting it through the atmosphere in risky rockets. The biggest thing we should be doing is recycling the spent fuel instead of just letting it sit at the power plants.

We have survived the countries of the former USSR having nuclear warheads but we can't muster the security needed to recycle spent fuel? wtf?

We would need 1500 producing windmills to equal 1 nuclear power plant. Yes it NEEDS to be made as safe as possible. We need to use the lessons learned, plus any lesson that we can remotely gleam from what happened to make the plants safer. But we must always remember with anything there is a risk and a reward.

Nuclear power can be extremely powerful. And just like anything else, with more power comes more risk. But if we are responsible with it, nuclear can give us the best rewards to pollution ratio.

[This message has been edited by phonedawgz (edited 02-09-2012).]

Since other countries are recycling I agree, the security issue is moot. I do recall reading that it costs more to recycle than to deposit deep underground, but since I haven't heard of a finalized underground program I might favor recycling anyway. There are some real toxic leavings from recycling too although the mass is reduced by about 95%. I'm pretty sure that groundwater was leaching into the storage area of yucca along with local opposition.

GAO: Death of Yucca Mountain Caused by Political Maneuvering

By HANNAH NORTHEY of Greenwire
Published: May 10, 2011


The Obama administration's rushed efforts to shut down Yucca Mountain were strictly political and could set back the opening of a nuclear waste repository by more than 20 years, according to a new report by a federal watchdog.

The administration killed the repository program last year without citing technical or safety issues, and restarting the costly and time-consuming process of finding a permanent repository or an alternative solution could take decades and cost billions of additional dollars, the Government Accountability Office reported yesterday.

The Energy Department began pursuing a license for the Nevada site in 2008 but pulled support a year later when the Obama administration said it was not an attractive solution for storing nuclear waste in the United States. The administration then closed out funding for the site, eliminated jobs and contractor activities and disposed of Las Vegas properties associated with the project.

"Several DOE officials told us that they had never seen such a large program with so much pressure to close down so quickly," the report said in reference to the repository located about 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

The Obama administration did not provide a technical or scientific basis for shutting down the site and failed to plan or identify risks associated with its hasty closure, which could hinder the Energy Department if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or lawsuits prompt the agency to revive the project, the report said.

House Republicans who asked GAO to conduct the report in 2009 are pouncing on the study as proof the project should be revived, considering Yucca Mountain has already cost more than $12 billion, and a permanent repository would offer a nationwide solution for more than 65,000 metric tons of spent fuel currently being stored near reactors in 33 states, an amount expected to double by 2055.

Republicans say those concerns are only magnified by the disaster in Japan, where spent fuel pools and reactors at its Fukushima Daiichi plant were damaged by a magnitude 9 earthquake and tsunami in March.

"The ongoing situation in Japan further underscores that our national security demands a coherent nuclear policy to safely and permanently store spent nuclear fuel," said House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) in a statement issued yesterday. "It is alarming for this administration to discard 30 years of research and billions of taxpayer dollars spent, not for technical or safety reasons, but rather to satisfy temporary political calculations."

Political decisionmaking

GAO's study found that Energy Secretary Steven Chu's decision to terminate the Yucca Mountain repository program was made for policy reasons, not technical or safety reasons, and officials speaking for Chu in 2010 did not cite any technical concerns or safety issues related to the Yucca Mountain site.

The Energy Department moved to pull its application to develop the site from NRC last year, but the commission's Atomic Safety Licensing Board ruled in June that the government could not pull the application unless Congress directed otherwise.

DOE appealed the board's decision to the full NRC panel, and the agency is in the process of making a recommendation on whether or not the government can pull its application. Under NRC procedures, the results of a vote are not made public until staff guidance is developed based on the votes and the commission passes a final order.

When DOE moved to shutter the project last year, Chu did not say Yucca Mountain was unsafe or that there were flaws in the license application, according to the report, but said the site was not a workable option and that alternatives should be found.

Instead, the administration created a presidentially appointed blue ribbon commission to review alternatives for storing, processing and disposing of nuclear waste but directed the panel not to review individual sites, including Yucca Mountain. The commission is slated to produce its first draft report this summer.

If NRC or the courts force the project to advance, DOE has already lost staff expertise, properties and contractor activities associated with the site, the study says, and many important procedures, including NRC's license review process, have already been closed out.

"Some of the officials we spoke with estimated that the termination of Yucca Mountain could set back the opening of a new geologic repository by at least 20 years and cost billions of dollars," the report said, adding that some stakeholders referred to the termination as "kicking the can down the road."

DOE sharply criticized the report's findings in a 14-page letter attached to the GAO study, saying it relies on "misapprehensions of fact."

The agency stated that it is possible the blue ribbon commission will find a national solution for storing nuclear waste in the United States, such as a centralized interim storage facility, which could be opened before the Nevada site is developed, especially if that site garners more public acceptance and avoids costly delays.

But even if such a project garners public acceptance and avoids cost delays, the GAO report says that an interim storage facility initiated in 2011 would take until 2045 to permit, license and review.

Political anger is also brewing over when NRC will issue a policy decision on whether the commission will uphold NRC's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's decision that the government cannot pull its application for Yucca Mountain.

House lawmakers are investigating whether NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko stalled the decision to politically protect his former boss, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), a leading opponent of the project(Greenwire, May 4).

Republicans have also accused the chairman of stalling the vote until summer, when Republican NRC Commissioner William Ostendorff's term expires, which would open a potential spot for a commissioner who opposes the Yucca project. Ostendorff has been nominated for another five-year term, which requires Senate confirmation. If he is not reconfirmed, President Obama can nominate a replacement.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) today admonished Democrats for holding up the nomination process, saying Ostendorff is one of the only commissioners with hands-on experience operating a nuclear reactor.

"This morning I call on those who continue to hold up this nomination to stop playing games with it and reconfirm this man to this post," McConnell said in a speech at the Nuclear Energy Assembly in Washington.

Copyright 2011 E&E Publishing. All Rights Reserved.

New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/gwir....html?pagewanted=all

Also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...ear_waste_repository

[This message has been edited by phonedawgz (edited 02-10-2012).]

You are cherry picking your information. Google "yucca mountain groundwater". There is a HUGE list! As I've said before you have a severely closed mind. I have my opinions, but I don't just source material which supports my opinion. I'm open to changing my mind and I sincerely wish that nuclear energy would be ok. I've said before that I am an environmentalist and I too am looking for alternatives to carbon dioxide emitting energy sources. I can't see how you could have never heard of any of the negatives with all of the research you have obviously done. You only post information which supports your preconceived opinions. Not once have you ever found the slightest thing wrong with nuclear energy. I consider you a good source of negative info, but I want to see the whole picture before making up my mind. Although I am leaning away from nuclear I am open to changing my mind.

If you wonder about specific costs, just remember the power companies are in business to make money.
If nuclear, wind, solar, etc. was more efficient and cheaper than coal or oil, they'd use it in a heartbeat. The fact that alternative technologies have to be subsidized is because they aren't economically competitive yet. They may be in the future, but not yet.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: What kind of backup systems will they have if some kind of disaster knocks out gravity?

Don't give the EPA any ideas! they will commission a $15 Million study to consider the questions

quote Originally posted by Formula88: If you wonder about specific costs, just remember the power companies are in business to make money. If nuclear, wind, solar, etc. was more efficient and cheaper than coal or oil, they'd use it in a heartbeat. The fact that alternative technologies have to be subsidized is because they aren't economically competitive yet. They may be in the future, but not yet.

I agree with the economics. Change isn't easy however and there is a lot of vested interest in wringing out the last profit out of their investment. Entirely understandable, not necessarily justifiable. You may have guessed that I'm impatient for clean renewable energy, the sooner the better. I think that we will get there eventually. I can't help it I'm an incurable optimist even when confronted with what would realistically be a pessimistic situation, I will be looking for a good side or a good alternative.

Google "Government Accountability Office"

Here is the easy read Wikipedia article - http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...ccountability_Office

If you consider labeling what the GAO says as cherry picking then you have a very closed mind.

Yes you can find any wacko opinion on the internet if you look for it. And you can dismiss what the New York Times, and the GAO have to say because you are closed minded.

But it clearly shows you are closed minded

quote Originally posted by dratts: You are cherry picking your information. Google "yucca mountain groundwater". There is a HUGE list! As I've said before you have a severely closed mind. I have my opinions, but I don't just source material which supports my opinion. I'm open to changing my mind and I sincerely wish that nuclear energy would be ok. I've said before that I am an environmentalist and I too am looking for alternatives to carbon dioxide emitting energy sources. I can't see how you could have never heard of any of the negatives with all of the research you have obviously done. You only post information which supports your preconceived opinions. Not once have you ever found the slightest thing wrong with nuclear energy. I consider you a good source of negative info, but I want to see the whole picture before making up my mind. Although I am leaning away from nuclear I am open to changing my mind.

I read every thing both pro and con. Did you even look at all the references that come Up when you google yucca mountain groundwater contamination? I didn't get past the first page of several references but they all called into question the water problem. Honestly, not every article printed is positive on nuclear energy and yet you are either unable, unwilling to find them. Not one negative thing have you ever posted. I acknowledge the positive aspects and possibilities of nuclear energy, but I want the whole picture. Yes you are the one who is close minded. I'll change my mind when you post one thing negative. They are out there along with the positives.

quote Originally posted by dratts: ...Not one negative thing have you ever posted...

Why should he? There are plenty of people already doing that.
Why don't you post up some of those links?
Make your case.

I must have missed them. Actually there is a case for me not posting any positives. That is well taken care of here. I'm not questioning Anyones intelligence. Before I got old I usually thought that I was the smart one in the room. I no longer feel that way, but one thing I don't have is a closed mind. I depend heavily on google, but I don't accept everything that I find there as gospel. I gave my google reference. It's very easy. You don't have to accept all of it, but at least give it a thought.

Here are the google results

http://www.google.com/searc...dwater+contamination

Now eliminating the ones on the first page who have an axe to grind that leaves

Zero

Here is what the EPA has to say

http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/yucca/

Yes the EPA says it is safe. But I am sure you will label the EPA as pro-nuke and ignore them also.

So the GAO and the EPA are ignored.

Yeah if I thought like you I might be anti-nuke. But when the issue is looked at with an open mind, the results are different.

quote Originally posted by dratts: I read every thing both pro and con. Did you even look at all the references that come Up when you google yucca mountain groundwater contamination? I didn't get past the first page of several references but they all called into question the water problem. Honestly, not every article printed is positive on nuclear energy and yet you are either unable, unwilling to find them. Not one negative thing have you ever posted. I acknowledge the positive aspects and possibilities of nuclear energy, but I want the whole picture. Yes you are the one who is close minded. I'll change my mind when you post one thing negative. They are out there along with the positives.

[This message has been edited by phonedawgz (edited 02-10-2012).]

Would someone else access the google site and tell me which one of us is totally wrong? I looked at the EPA site and all it said was what EPA standards and responsibilities are. I saw zero examples of EPA declaring it safe. Incidentally the references there were from 2008. You always claim that you are not cherry picking, but here you go again. I know that you are smart, so I just don't get you. You seem to have an agenda of promoting your viewpoint no matter what the facts are. Myself I have yet to make up my mind.

quote Originally posted by MidEngineManiac: Georgia....the same place they came up with THIS and somebody wants to give them nuke capability.....uh, yeh.

Also the same place that built the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor.

Well lets throw some rough numbers at it.

Taking Vogtle as the example of "New Nuclear"

Vogtle has received an 8.2 billion dollar loan guarantee subsidy from the federal government. What is the value of that subsidy? Well if the loan is paid back then it would be $0. But if the company defaults then it would be the entire $8.2B. I would say a reasonable value would be about 10%. So that would be $820M.

Vogtle is building two 1117 MW reactors. That comes to 2234 MW. Then using a 86.4% up time (taken from the actual up time of our local nuke plant Point Beach) that would give an annual production of 16.9 TW-h Over a very conservative estimate of a 40 year life span that would be 677 TW-h.

So now take the $820M and divide by the 677 TW-h and you get a net subsidy of $1.21/MW-h.

That number is well below the subsidies given to wind and solar

* The initial plan lifespan of a nuclear plant is usually 30 to 40 years. That is usually extended to about 60 years by upgrades to the facility.

http://www.sustainablebusin...ews.display/id/23399
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...ric_Generating_Plant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik..._Beach_Nuclear_Plant
http://www.leonardo-energy....nuclear-power-plants

[This message has been edited by phonedawgz (edited 02-11-2012).]

I'm out of here phonedawgz. I have no interest in arguing just for the sake of arguing. This is not a discussion. You are unwilling to reconsider your preconceived notions and you have tired me out. I would probably enjoy a conversation with you about Fieros or some other topic but this is pointless for me.

That's cool

I was replying to carnut122's post anyways.

I was looking to come up with an apples to apples type comparison of new nuclear to new wind turbines.

[This message has been edited by phonedawgz (edited 02-11-2012).]

quote Originally posted by phonedawgz: That's cool I was replying to carnut122's post anyways. I was looking to come up with an apples to apples type comparison of new nuclear to new wind turbines.

No problem here. So, what's your analysis on Vogtle compared to wind? You know which way I lean, but I'd still like to know.

quote Originally posted by carnut122: Also the same place that built the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor.

Also the same place I had wanted to go 20 years ago....but the company sent me to California instead.....cant help but wonder, how different life would have turned out...if I had gone to the Atlanta office instead of the Livermore one.....My cousins were 20 minuties outside of town, so I would have had family...This from a Canadian that proudly wears a reb flag tatood .....

But you boys STILL dont know how to build a camper on a truck !!!!.................Ya use ice and shape it like an Igloo and heat it with wale-fat candles !!!!!

F-22....Pffftttt...I'll see your F-22 and raise ya one DeHaviland Beaver over a lake in the north .....uh, yea...nevermind, with the radial motor things.....naw, ya dont want to be behind one unless ya got a glider licences---much like raptor pilots from what I hear

http://defensetech.org/2011...ounded-indefinitely/

[This message has been edited by MidEngineManiac (edited 02-11-2012).]

quote Originally posted by carnut122: So, what's your analysis on Vogtle [nuclear] compared to wind? You know which way I lean, but I'd still like to know.

Not sure what you mean by "analysis". If you mean a complete and carefully thought-out financial analysis, that's a full-time job for somebody. I couldn't attempt it. Maybe phonedawgz..

I do know that the Vogtle nuclear has (or will have?) a capacity of over 2000 Megawatts. I think that you would have to have something on the order of a 1,000 large wind turbines to equal that much capacity, and just in terms of the geographical footprint, or acreage involved, that much of a wind-installation would dwarf the acreage of the nuclear plant and its surrounding safety zone (so I would surmise). However, if you go offshore with the wind-turbines, as they are doing, particularly in England and Scotland, it's certainly possible.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 02-11-2012).]

A well placed land based wind turbine will have a capacity factor of 30 percent.

Based on the capacity factor of 30 percent and a nameplate capacity of 1.5 MW, that would mean the two additional reactors at Vogtle would equate to 4,289 wind turbines.

That would equate to 39 wind turbines on every mile of the 110 miles that Interstate 95 runs through Georgia.

And consider this, there are 4 more existing reactors in Georgia.

[This message has been edited by phonedawgz (edited 02-11-2012).]

quote The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is expected to approve licenses to build to two new nuclear reactors Thursday, the first approvals in over 30 years.

Approved!

quote Years of shifting and smoothing Georgia red clay paid off last week, as the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission voted to allow construction of two new nuclear reactors near Augusta. Atlanta-based utility giant Southern Co. will soon have permission to complete construction and operate two AP1000 type nuclear reactors (PDF) at the Plant Vogtle nuclear power station.

cnet

Btw, I've been "offshore" more than most, and there are many days the wind is nill. Doldrums.
Nukes don't care if the wind blows or not, or whether the sun is shining clear or cloudy or not--or whether it's day or night.