The argument that no AP1000 plants have been built in the US is pretty threadbare. These units are under construction thruout the world, including the US (I believe 8 of them are scheduled for construction in the US). The fact that a PROTYPE plant had cost overruns in another country means zilch. ALL prototypes have cost overruns. Plenty of AP1000 plants are currently being constructed worldwide without any cost overruns. The AP1000 is a third generation reactor specifically designed to take advantage of the cost reduction techniques of standardized design. (I might add that the car I just bought also cost three times what I spent for a car in 1980, and that windmills have doubled in cost in less than 4 years). The cost comparisons between nuclear and alternative energies are staggering. Nuclear is far and away the cheaper way to go. I also point out that much of the costs of alternative energy are hidden or
never mentioned. By my estimates, wind costs about 5 times more than nuclear. Unreliable and uncontrollable alternative energies such as solar and wind cannot meet peak demand requirements, and thus are of zero value in meeting future power needs. No coal or fossil fuel plant has ever been closed because of the introduction of wind or solar power, and never will be. Alternative energy power thus requires duplication, adding a large cost and one which is concealed by alternative energy advocates. Also concealed is the added emissions required to accept unreliable and variable power inputs from wind and solar into the grid. These can increase over 15%. So wind and solar are NOT carbon free alternatives.
Since nuclear fuel is so cheap, much of the cost of nuclear is in the construction of the plant, or initial build costs. But that plant will last 60 years. And the costs of decommissioning the plant are collected during its lifetime - as of now, EVERY US nuclear plant has more than sufficient funds set aside for decomissioning. The cost is less than 1/2 cent per kilowatthour. Alternative energies are also heavilly subsidized, while the only thing nucelar pwoer gets are loan guarantess, which have cost the taxpayers zero dollars. My taxes, on the other hand, are used to subsidize wind power in California to the tune of 2 cxents per kilowatthpur. That is more than the entire cost of nuclear power currently being generated (1.8 cents per kilowatthour). This article was written by someone not qualified to deal with cost issues of utility power.
Hillebrand's no "expert." There will be NO constraint on the production of plug-in due to the lack of any battery
capacity in this country for the rather simple reason that US cars such as the Volt, to be produced "as many as can be sold," will get their batteries from either Korea's LG or China. Why is he worrying about where the batteries are made? Hillebrand should stick to subjects he know something about. AND city dwellers (at least those who have cars) have places to park them and there will be plenty of outlets in condo parking spaces (as there are in ours already) and on the street (as in London), and a great many office buildings and shoppping malls will also have them (as in Japan's largest retailer), making the need for an outlet at your house unnecessary. And the commuting MPG for the Volt is 300 miles, not the 100 which Alexander mistakenly believes.