How much would a 1000 megawatt plant cost using various sources of electricity

[Grelby]

@RandomLetters

The operating cost of nuclear reactors right now is about 1.7 cents per kilowatt-hour. Wind power at best cost about 5 cents per kilowatt-hour. Nuclear reactors also return about 40-60 times as much energy as is needed to create/run them, which is better than any renewable source, with the exception of hydro power.

Read the posts after this one. Had I not seen them, I still would still believe the figure of 1.7 cents per kilowatt-hour to be in the realm of total fantasy. Buddadog’s cites seem to demonstrate pretty clearly that this is so.

[Measure_for_Measure]

The Electric Power Annual 2000 by EIA puts nuclear power operating costs at 1.8 cents/kWh. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/analysis/nuclearpower.html

But that ignores plant construction. To estimate total costs, see the MIT study cited above.

[BubbaDog]

@Grelby

… So are you saying that selling a means for consumers to supply some of their own off-grid power is a means by which those consumers will make up the slack themselves? I hope that I misunderstood that, because it sounds to me like a totally bass-akwards way to combine on and off-grid power. The way I’ve always understood it was the other way around - the off-grid panels on the consumer’s house (or apartment building, or whatever - and therein lies a great challenge for off-grid power, I can now see: apartment dwellings) are the principle power supply, and the grid makes up the slack. That seems most cost effective to the owner of the PV panels. Anyway, I’d appreciate you explaining this more clearly, please :)…

Gladly. The one big reason that the grid exists is because large scale production of kwh is more economical than small. The “bass-akwards” way is exactly the way it works now. It’s the reason we don’t all have honda generators running all day in the back yard. Its a nice idea to have off-grid as the primary home energy source, but still a ways off due to economics

When a consumer uses a combination of on and off-grid power, they will save money in the long run, which means that they will pay less to the energy company in the long run. I can’t imagine that said company sees this as a good deal.

Believe it or not they do. If the power company can avoid building peaking power plants then that’s good. Put it this way…the power company makes a higher profit selling round-the-clock from its cheap coal plants. Sometimes during peak usage the energy company is upside down on its costs (losing money on the sale) because its inefficient peakers are on line.

The problem I see is a perception that there are problems with solar power beyond the high cost of manufacturing the needed components, when such problems do not, in fact, exist, and a general misapprehension that the power grid is the best way to deliver energy under all circumstances.

As a participant from the supplier side I agree with you. I think that improved efficiency in production and use methods is a natural course of evolution for this industry and that it will eventually push the focus of production to the customer site.

Aw, crap, and now I’m guilty of hijacking a GQ thread :smack: .

We disagree again. I think our discussion is very appropriate for the thread

[BubbaDog]

@Measure for Measure

What? Everything I’ve read suggests that nuke plants are far more expensive to build than coal plants.

After reconsidering, I probably undeplayed the cost with my statement.
My point was alluding to the fact that the construction cost, while high, was not the primary reason for the moratorium on building.
It’s the financial risks - wall street reaction, regulatory, siting, etc which keep energy cos from jumping back in to this technology.