FIRST, a brief question or two for Mr. Mead: You wrote a rather long and “warm & fuzzy” self-aggrandizing diatribe regarding Saipan’s future, but did not cite a single scientific fact or reference, nor did you address any of the data I presented. You painted a nebulous utopia based on a wind farm of 150 megawatts. Please tell us just what that would cost — unless, of course, you plan to build it single-handedly without power tools of any kind and donate it to Saipan. Next, please tell us how much space it will occupy along with what will happen when the wind exceeds 130 mph. Then tell us how long it will take to build, how heavy each turbine is, its nominal output and how much force is required to bring it up to and maintain speed at any particular rotation efficiency or wind vlocity.
Also please tell us why you think nuclear energy is “insufficient in power and scope.” Japan now gets over 20 percent of its energy from nuclear and France is over 85 percent and has the cleanest environment in all of Europe. In fact, they have so much cheap, clean and safe energy that some of it is exported to Italy, Germany and across the channel to London! (CBS, Sixty Minutes, 4/8/07)
For the future, refrain from calling anyone a “fool” in public and attempt to disparage their background in print when you have not the slightest knowledge of what it is or of whom you speak. And you might want to “update” yourself on recently published scientific information regarding all forms of energy. From what you have written, it would appear that you are several years behind. You discredit yourself by such unprofessional conduct.
The question nearly everyone wants answered concerns that old bugaboo of what to do with the nuclear “waste” (spent fuel) from a nuclear power plant, the traditional Achilles heel of anything nuclear. Well, it appears that this problem has been eradicated with the new generation III+ and IV reactors. These new reactors use low level uranium based alloys imbedded as tiny pebbles or thin strings in graphite or other absorbent materials. They simply do not emit harmful radiation into the environment. Even so, the new reactors are completely sealed modules and when the “fuel” is burned out; the entire module is removed and trucked away to a reprocessing site or a low level disposal site (national — not local). Depending on the reactor design, these fuel modules last anywhere from 5 to 30 years before replacement is needed and since it is a completely sealed module with no radiation, there is no exposure to the environment — at all, ever!
And just in case you are wondering about contamination of the heat transport or other plant systems adjacent to the reactor — that’s not possible in the new design either. Remember, there just isn’t any radiation outside the reactor core that could cause anything to become radioactive. And what about the cost of final decommissioning of the plant when yet another new and better technology comes along? The U.S. Department of Energy mandates that every nuclear plant (even the “new” ones) must join a program called the “one mil program.” Essentially, it is a national insurance policy — and the “premium” is one tenth of one penny (one mil) per kilowatt hour of energy produced over the lifetime of the plant. This is a “savings account” with the DOE and is then used to pay the final cost of decommissioning — at no additional cost to the community.
Finally, let’s take a brief look at the bottom line. What will electricity cost you — the homeowner? I know it’s hard to believe, but the national average cost of electricity in the United States today is SEVEN CENTS per kilowatt hour — and we’re paying what? Did I hear someone say THIRTY CENTS! Right. Or more.
There are several components that comprise the delivered cost to the consumer. There is capitalization cost (how much to build the system). This part of the cost to the consumer also depends on where the money comes from, how the system is amortized and over what period of time. Then there are the operations and maintenance, or O&M, costs. These are pretty standard and can be calculated fairly precisely based on the equipment used. Another cost component is the cost of fuel. And finally, there is administrative, insurance and some other rather minor items (some of this is occasionally mixed into operations and maintenance).
We already know what electricity costs the consumer when it comes from a diesel based facility — we have that right here, and it’s pretty well killing us, too. Taken all together, the operations and maintenance costs for just about any kind of power plant is pretty much the same. Primarily, this consists of operating and maintaining rotating equipment and distribution of the product. The only currently used power source that does not have rotating equipment is solar — but there are other maintenance costs here as well. For most power facilities, this O&M cost hovers somewhere around an average of 2.1 cents per kilowatt hour (national operations statistics — Burns & Roe and Toshiba). For fossil fuel, this may be slightly higher because of the nature of the equipment used to burn the fuel.
Capitalization is generally the most difficult of all to address, but for most power facilities, this cost is generally around an average of 2.5 to 2.7 cents per kilowatt hour, assuming the cost is amortized over at least twenty years. However, for both wind and even more so for solar, this cost is doubled or a little more than double at today’s standard.
The last major piece of the cost puzzle is fuel. For diesel, this is very high — and going up. Right now, it’s about 20 to 21 cents per kilowatt hour. For other fossil fuels such as coal, it’s quite a bit lower, but there are many drawbacks to using any fossil fuels. Wind and solar both have a tremendous empirical advantage in that the “fuel” is free — no cost to producer or the consumer. Only problem is, that “fuel” is not there all the time; in fact, solar is MIA more than 50 percent of the time, and wind is also variable or MIA 20 to 30 percent of the time. So each of these must be supplemented with other forms of power that DO have a fuel “cost.” What will that be? Biomass? Where will we get the volume and how much will that cost? Diesel, with its high cost? Anyway, there will be a fuel cost even to wind and solar because of the supplementation required. Remember, 20 percent wind power reduces reliance on other fuel costs by only 6.7 percent (UIC, 2006).
The fuel cost of a new generation III+ or IV nuclear reactor, at current rates is about 0.011 cents per kilowatt hour; steady, reliable, safe and clean and for a very long time.
Finally, everything added up, the bottom line for cost to the consumer is about 30 cents per kwh for oil, 12 to 15 cents per kwh for solar, 10 to 12 cents per kwh for wind, 7 to 9 cents per kwh for coal and hydro, and 5 to 7 cents per kwh for nuclear.
It is clear that there will be no single “winning” technology. No community should even think of putting all its eggs in one “power basket,” but rather a combination based on availability, economy and useful contribution will make a “winner.” And there are only three that will give this community all it deserves: wind, solar and nuclear balanced in such as way as to provide reliability, continuous uninterrupted service, economy of operation and space, aesthetically pleasing and, most importantly, environmentally safe and free of greenhouse gasses and any other emissions whatsoever.

DR. THOMAS D. ARKLE JR.
San Jose, Tinian