The New York Times added an Editor's Note to the article used as the basis for the original Slashdot post at the following URL

(http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/27/business/global/27iht-renuke.html)

Editors' Note: August 3, 2010

An article published July 27 in an Energy Special Report analyzed the costs of nuclear energy production. It quoted a study that found that electricity from solar photovoltaic systems could now be produced less expensively than electricity from new nuclear power plants.

In raising several questions about this issue and the economics of nuclear power, the article failed to point out, as it should have, that the study was prepared for an environmental advocacy group, which, according to its Web site, is committed to ‘‘tackling the accelerating crisis posed by climate change — along with the various risks of nuclear power.’’ The article also failed to take account of other studies that have come to contrasting conclusions, or to include in the mix of authorities quoted any who elaborated on differing analyses of the economics of energy production.

Although the article did quote extensively from the Web site of the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry group, representatives of the institute were not given an opportunity to respond to the claims of the study. This further contributed to an imbalance in the presentation of this issue.

Perhaps it is time for a similar note on the Slashdot post. Rod Adams Publisher, Atomic Insights

Just curious - how many people live in Death Valley and how much do transmission lines that will only be carrying power for a small portion of the day cost on a per unit of energy carried? Remember, those lines have to be sized to carry the maximum load, but they will be completely empty at night. The costly panels or mirrors are also idle during much of the day, that is part of the reason that the power is so expensive - idle capital is often not very economic.

One of the reasons that the production cost from nuclear power plants is as low as it is (just 2.03 cents per kilowatt hour in 2009) is that the plants pump out the power at maximum rated capacity for an average of 91% of the time. It is sort of like a restaurant that is serving customers 24 x 7 and no one lolly gags after eating.

The article published in the New York Times about the cost of solar being cheaper than nuclear was largely based on a single paper written by a retired economics professor and a student working on his Masters in Environmental Management. The paper was openly and clearly marked that it was commissioned by NC Warn. NC Warn makes no secret of its mission "NC WARN is a member-based nonprofit tackling the accelerating crisis posed by climate change – along with the various risks of nuclear power – by watch-dogging utility practices and working for a swift North Carolina transition to energy efficiency and clean power generation. "

In other words, the NY Times author based its assertion on a commissioned paper from an organization on a mission. The author neglected to read the paper's appendix where the authors explained that a residential solar system producing a peak power output of 3 kwe would cost $18,000 installed and provide electricity at 35 cents per kilowatt hour if financed at 6% over a 25 year period.

If the homeowner accepted the current 30% federal tax credit and the 35% state tax credit, the resulting system would only cost the homeowner $8,190 and would cost taxpayers $9,810. With the same financing scheme, the homeowner could produce electricity for 15.9 cents NET cost to him. Unfortunately, the average retail price of electricity in North Carolina is just 10.9 cents per kilowatt hour delivered all day and all night.

This is a completely deceptive use of numbers to capture eyeballs. It is way below what used to pass for journalistic standards at the Times. Rod Adams Publisher, Atomic Insights (Note - I published a more detailed deconstruction on my blog. I think Mugs linked to it earlier in this thread.)

Would you prefer me trying to hide my preferences? I will admit it in the largest public forum I can find - I am a nuke! I love fission and think it is a huge boon to mankind!

WRT my commute - my wife's commute is less than 5 miles. Rather than splitting the distance, we gave me a long one and her a short one. At least my car gets about 47 MPG year round. I keep pressing for telecommuting.

Why is it rational for profitable companies to ask for subsidies? Government funds imply government control - if you have the right answer, you do not need governments to approve or fund it.

The analysis about oil prices versus nuclear production uses the law of supply and demand and historical figures. Plenty of people disagree, but the numbers are there for the asking.

Please tell me how nuclear power stations are subsidized when compared to coal. As an Australian with no nuclear power stations operating in your country, you might not be aware of the economic computations that show that nuclear power is about 20% less expensive than coal using prices from two years ago, and several times cheaper than oil or natural gas.

Rod Adams
President, Adams Atomic Engines, Inc.