My point was that a nuke at idle costs about the same amount to operate as a nuke producing at capacity. It is all about spreading fixed costs over units of production. No production -- infinitely high unit costs -- production at capacity essentially the same total costs spread out over design capacity of the plant.

As to why liability relief is needed, as a libertarian, my basic belief is that that Government shouldn't be bestowing relief on one class of producers. However, the counter to that is the fact that there is simply no way to commercially insure the risk involved with a serious accident at a nuke on the open market. No responsible party will write these policies as the theory of insurance requires some predictability of occurence [or at least a basis for handicapping the odds] and the more critically the financial capability on the part of the issuer to pay off. Both are lacking in the case of nukes.

Without effective risk management to place limits on liability, a company operating nukes will be seen as [sorry -- pun intended] radioactive.

In in commercial sense, a major nuke accident represents the unthinkable. In a broader sense, the Russians had the unthinkable occur and for the most part life goes on.

It all comes down to the responsibility of the board of directors to manage risk and avoid whenever possible optional, but potentially fatal risks to the corporation. The board's duty is to the shareholders and not to the greater good -- whatever that might be.

IMO, [and from what I surmise to be Alan's perspective] the debate really is over whether we want to burn more coal; compel behavior changes --- probably at the point of a gun; simply let the SHTF as the grid collapses from overloads; go to progressively longer rolling black outs -- same end result as the other grid collapse scenario although initially the process of break down of society might be less dramatic; or build nukes.

BTW, I am positive on solar [and maybe wind] coupled with better storage technologies over the long haul, but nukes appear to be the best approach to getting through what I expect will be a nasty transition.

I don't know whether you consider the above to be an adequate explanation, but that is most of the story in few paragraphs. An even more abbreviated version might be: Generate or degenerate.

There are quite a few inches of procedures to be followed to stop & restart a nuke, but it is NOT unsafe.

Reactionary is correct, economics (CHEAP fuel, expensive capital) make 100% load the preferred mode.  Occasionally, when the power source with the cheapest fuel (hydro) has a surplus of fuel and no place to store the excess water, they will slow down WHOOPS 2 (not enough distribution lines to take all available hydro + nuke out of area).  The French also throttle back a handful of their nukes as night (AFAIK).

To restart a steam NG plant from cols takes the equilavent of 30 minutes fuel at 100% load just to get it hot.  Coal takes even more.

Given a choice between burning coal at 3 AM and idling an NG plant, or burning NG at night and turnign of a coal plant, idle the one with the more expensive fuel.

Base load plants have thicker turbine blades at the roots (last longer at constant load), whilst peakers have thinner blades (heat & cool easier, last longer when cycled).  When the City of Astin was looking at swicthing one of their NG steam plants from base load (load with cycle between ~33% & 100%) to peaker, they planned to remachine the turbine blades at considerable expense.

Karahnjukar hydro turbines were designed for a steady load.  Very different turbines would have likely been built if it were a peaking hydro plant.

So it is not the fuel, but a number of engineering decisions that are made in design.  What works best for cycling use (on/part load/off) does not work best for steady 100% load use.  Cycling a base load plant, regardless of fuel, is just NOT a good idea.  And running a peaker at full load for 500 days straight is also not a great idea.

One could build (and it would happen) a New Phoenix upstream ;-(, but NOT New Orleans.  One has to live here to truly appreciate the unmatched genius of the 1800s Urban Planners/Developers here, the quality of the cypress framed houses (heart pine was used later when cypress ran short), the beauty and ambience of the culture that flows from it all.

The New Urbanist Movement draws VERY strongly from the living example of New Orleans, BUT they still don't quite "Get It".  They need to look longer and harder at what makes New Orleans tick (I have told them some of the points that they miss in postKatrina planning meetings but they believe their textbooks more than their lying eyes) so that it can be replicated elsewhere.  Losing New Orleans will also mean a loss for the future of every urban area in the US.

In addition, the population of New Orleans is uniquely motivated to improve the city that we truly love.  This unique civic resource should NOT be wasted !  What works here, with the wisdom of the people*, can guide others by example postPeak Oil.

I cannot wait to leave Phoenix and go back to my disaster zone, with all the suffering that entails.   But a broken New Orleans is a FAR more livable and passionate city than Phoenix/Scottsdale (I am typing close to 56th & Cactus).

BTW, about $15 billion to $18 billion would rebuild the levees AND, more importantly, restore the wetlands destroyed by the US Army & the oil industry.  A proper wetlands will be a "speed bump" for any hurricane with MANY other values and we value restored wetlands more than Cat 5 levees (isn't that odd, a widespread acceptance of a long term natural solution rather than a "Bigger & Higher" fix ?)

One rebuilds the wetlands by diverting some of the Mississippi from it's channel and spreading alluvial deposits back over natural areas.

* I would take the Urban Planning choices of a waiter, barber, school teacher and taxicab driver who live & work here over that of the out-of-town New Urbanists who parachuted in.  We know better because we live and interact with our city in ways that few other cities do.

Just give us the Offshore Oil & Gas Royalties.  Alaska gets so much that they have almost zero taxes and give chacks back most years.  Half of Wyomings budget, but we get zero today.

Our disaster is the direct result of incompetence and malfeasance by the US Army.  A man made disaster, not a natural one. Just compensation for our losses would give us FAR more than we need.

> Love to see this data

I was surprised to see how low it was from postKatrina planning documents that were handed out.

You seem to know the price of everything and the value of nothing.  I will leave it at that.

Simon Winchester thinks the U.S. is especially vulnerable, simply because we are such a new nation.

In mature countries in the old civilisations of Asia, Europe and Africa, the big cities are, by and large, where they ought to be.

So London, Paris, Cairo, Beijing, Moscow, all thousands of years old, all in seismically stable places untroubled by terrible weather.

But by the same token these ancient countries are littered with the ruins of cities built where they ought not to have been built - Pompeii, Petra, Ayutthaya in Thailand, Heliopolis.

As tourists we cluster around these ruins, in awe. Ruins are part of our cultural inheritance, important for the perspective that they bring, reminders of our impermanence.

But America is a country without any ruins.

Maybe the odd ghost-town in Utah and Nevada, but basically no ruined cities.

The country is young enough to have set down its cities wherever it pleases, without ever stopping to ask if the world agrees.

And the world does not always agree.

Which prompts me to wonder out loud whether - if one can imagine a map of America drawn up, say, two centuries from now - whether there may in fact be a litter of abandoned and ruined cities.

New Orleans, for example.

It is a little eccentric to create a city on a swamp, six metres below sea-level, between a river and a lake, in a part of the world afflicted by near-constant summer hurricanes. Might this not, one day, be abandoned to the elements?

And what of Tucson, Phoenix, Las Vegas, even?

There is no water there. And there is no great world tradition of building cities to last in the middle of deserts. So Phoenix may go the way of Petra, though it is a little difficult to imagine its ruins attracting quite so many tourists.

And then what of San Francisco?

A heresy, of course, to imagine it ever being abandoned and yet it does lie athwart one of the most dangerous tectonic plate boundaries on the planet.

Might it not be possible to suppose that some peoples of the future will wander, amazed, around the stumps of the Golden Gate Bridge, or the shell of the TransAmerica Pyramid and wonder - why did anyone ever choose to live here?