Letters to the Editor
-
Unfair and obviously biased
In fact, from 2000 through October 2007, nuclear power plant construction costs -- mainly materials, labor and engineering -- have gone up 185 percent! That means a nuclear power plant that would have cost $4 billion to build in 2000 would have cost more than $11 billion to build last October.
$4 billion in gasoline in 2000 would cost $15 billion last October. You have discovered inflation.
Also, you leave off quite a few things that could change your equations, such as advancements in nuclear technology, which is relatively new, versus wind technology, which isn't going to have any massive leaps. Take a look at what the South Africans are doing with pebble-bed reactors. It's neat, cheap, very safe, and fairly close, I think.
The problem is that your alternatives sound good on the surface, until you get down into the details. Yes, solar can be incredibly cheap to operate. You would also have to cover about 1/3rd of Arizona to get anywhere near meeting the current energy requirements of the U.S. I would dearly love to see the environmental impact study that discusses essentially pitching a tent and blocking out the sun from the ground of 1/3rd of Arizona. Something tells me that most environmentalists would prefer drilling in Alaska.
Ohyeah.
And how can one possibly ignore the capital costs of arguably the most capital-intensive form of energy? Moore's statement is like saying "My house is incredibly cheap to live in, if I don't include the mortgage."
That's a cheap shot. Moore was being very clear that he was talking about the average cost of generation, and not the total cost of ownership. Eventually, the mortgage gets paid off.. Generally in 15-30 years. Design life for a nuclear reactor is probably 60-80 years, given that a bunch were built in the 70's are expected to remain in service until 2030 or so. That's 30-50 years of 1.6-cent-per-kw.
Finally (there are so many gaping flaws in this article that I'm having to limit myself), Duke isn't keeping the cost of the Carolina plant secret out of some nefarious plot. It's currently negotiating costs with contractors. Yes, when contractors hear "Duke expects to pay $X billion for the plant", they start thinking "Oh, well, I can pad this estimate a bit then.". The article expressly states Duke plans to release the estimate in 6 months after it's locked in pricing with the contractors.
I recommend you step back and re-think your approach, preferably something without as many exclamation points.