# New and improved nuclear plants may cost more than expected. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 5, 2009, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880 "2009-06-05T22:35:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2009, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/61 "2009-06-06T04:46:41Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Many words, but you haven’t even attempted to answer my question. > > The fact is that we can very rapidly (~20 years) replace most if not all the world’s power needs with nuclear is needed. And we can do that using current technology in a manner that will have far, far fewer health and environmental risks than any current power regime. > > So the question I put to you Oakminster is why you feel we need to spend any more money doing tests? Bold my goddamn name next time. It’s polite. And I did answer the fucking question. Read it again. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2009, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/62 "2009-06-06T04:56:47Z")
Just on the issue of costs. : [Nuclear =1.87 cents per kilowatt-hour](http://www.nei.org/keyissues/reliableandaffordableenergy/electricitysupply) [Wind = 5 cents/kWh.](http://www.awea.org/faq/cost.html) [Solar = 10 to 14 cents per kilowatt-hour](http://www.nrdc.org/air/energy/renewables/solar.asp) Not to say that a doubling of electricity cost using wind is untenable, but claims that it s cheaper than nuclear are pure bunkum. A five to seven fold increase from solar is simply impractical. Anyone suggesting that we could have anything like the current standard of living with 7 times the price for our power isn’t living in he real world. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2009, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/63 "2009-06-06T04:57:55Z")
The fact is that we can very rapidly (~20 years) replace most if not all the world’s power needs with nuclear is needed. And we can do that using current technology in a manner that will have far, far fewer health and environmental risks than any current power regime. So the question I put to you Oakminster is why you feel we need to spend any more money doing tests? ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2009, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/64 "2009-06-06T05:00:05Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > The fact is that we can very rapidly (~20 years) replace most if not all the world’s power needs with nuclear is needed. And we can do that using current technology in a manner that will have far, far fewer health and environmental risks than any current power regime. > > So the question I put to you Oakminster is why you feel we need to spend any more money doing tests? See post number 55. And bold my goddamn name. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2009, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/65 "2009-06-06T05:09:05Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > See post number 55. And bold my goddamn name. Many words, but you haven’t even attempted to answer my question. The fact is that we can very rapidly (~20 years) replace most if not all the world’s power needs with nuclear is needed. And we can do that using current technology in a manner that will have far, far fewer health and environmental risks than any current power regime. So the question I put to you Oakminster is why you feel we need to spend any more money doing tests? ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2009, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/66 "2009-06-06T05:10:15Z")
I wish this thread was in the Pit. There’s some incredible ignorance in this thread, and with the way rules have been enforced lately in GD I’m uncertain if I’m even allowed to call another poster “ignorant” or not. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2009, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/67 "2009-06-06T05:32:24Z")
It is nothing…we in the USA of Obama are spending trillions-often with no clue of where the money is going!. I like the “Stimulus” Bill-not one of our esteemed senators have read the entire bill. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2009, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/68 "2009-06-06T05:33:52Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Because nuclear is cheaper ( barring all the obstructionism ), less destructive ( exactly how many states do you plan to level to put your solar panels on ? ), and practical. Wind, solar and so forth aren’t up to the job, and are more expensive. Barring all the obstructionism? That is about as practical a suggestion as the one you make to barring all obstructionism to ending religious belief worldwide. I mean this in all seriousness and respect for your position, but you do realize that barring all obstructionism to things we oppose is just simply not plausible, even in just a discussion? > [@Una\_Persson](#): > > I wish this thread was in the Pit. There’s some incredible ignorance in this thread, and with the way rules have been enforced lately in GD I’m uncertain if I’m even allowed to call another poster “ignorant” or not. I’m ignorant and feel free to call me that, I’m not offended. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2009, 5:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/69 "2009-06-06T05:44:28Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Just on the issue of costs. : > > [Nuclear =1.87 cents per kilowatt-hour](http://www.nei.org/keyissues/reliableandaffordableenergy/electricitysupply) > > [Wind = 5 cents/kWh.](http://www.awea.org/faq/cost.html) > > [Solar = 10 to 14 cents per kilowatt-hour](http://www.nrdc.org/air/energy/renewables/solar.asp) > [@](#): > > The average production cost of 1.87 cents per kilowatt-hour includes the costs of operating and maintaining the plant, purchasing fuel and paying for the management of used fuel. Indeed, the average _production_ cost of nuclear is low. That number does not include the cost of capital. Wind and solar have even lower _production_ costs. Counting for capital costs nuclear is substantially higher and by some estimates significantly higher than many other electricity sources. [Including capital costs one source](http://www.marylandpirg.org/home/reports/report-archives/smart-energy-solutions/smart-energy-solutions/powering-marylands-future-how-clean-energy-outperforms-nuclear-power-in-delivering-a-reliable-safe-and-affordable-supply-of-electricity) quotes > [@](#): > > Recent estimates have placed the lifetime average cost of nuclear power in the range of 12 to 15 cents per kWh—with some as high as 22 cents per kWh … although I have read lower numbers as well. The point of the op **Blake** is not how expensive a nuclear plant is to _run_. It is not, and neither is a wind farm or a utility grade solar plant or a geothermal plant, or so on. The point is how expensive they are to build and that hopes that the new generation of “standardized” plants would lower those initial capital costs have turned out to be untrue and that budgeted and “anticipated” costs may underestimate true costs dramatically. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2009, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/70 "2009-06-06T05:49:06Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > I mean this in all seriousness and respect for your position, but you do realize that barring all obstructionism to things we oppose is just simply not plausible, even in just a discussion? That may be true, but it’s dishonest, illogical and misleading for the ones doing the obstruction to then claim that the thing they obstruct is expensive for technical reasons, and that this expense s the reason why they are obstructing it. Nuclear power is not expensive because of any technical or inherent economic reason. It’s expensive because people like you obstruct it at every step of the way. For you to then claim, as you have done, that you obstruct it because it is expensive is both disingenuous and self-referential. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2009, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/71 "2009-06-06T05:54:26Z")
**DSeid** I think you may want to go back and read the thread. The Second Stone said wind electricity is, and I quote, “a lot cheaper to produce energy per kilowatt hour than nuclear”. The point is explicitly **not** how expensive they are to build. The point is only how expensive a nuclear plant is to produce energy per kilowatt hour. My figures show that they are not lot more expensive to produce energy per kilowatt hour than wind. They are in fact a lot cheaper. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2009, 6:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/72 "2009-06-06T06:13:52Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > **DSeid** I think you may want to go back and read the thread. Irony. Cool. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2009, 6:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/73 "2009-06-06T06:15:30Z")
Look, the fact is that we can very rapidly (~20 years) replace most if not all the world’s power needs with nuclear is needed. And we can do that using current technology in a manner that will have far, far fewer health and environmental risks than any current power regime. So the question I put to you Oakminster is why you feel we need to spend any more money doing tests? ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2009, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/74 "2009-06-06T06:17:08Z")
Moo. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2009, 6:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/75 "2009-06-06T06:20:13Z")
**Blake** you are comparing the cost of nuclear marginal operation and production costs with wind and solar’s _capital_ and operating and production costs. That is just a stupid comparison to make. Sorry but there is no nicer way to say that. For each the cost of the power is primarily the cost of the capital to build it and the cost of servicing that capital cost. O and M in each is fairly minor. Nuclear is at a distinct disadvantage there as its initial capital cost is much harder to predict (as the article linked to in the op demonstrates) and the period of time from taking out the capital to earning a return on the investment is longer and potentially much longer. If you want to make your point such as it is you need to provide a source that identifies how much wind power costs to operate and maintain and compare that to your nuclear figure. But again the figure that most actually care about includes the capital cost. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2009, 6:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/76 "2009-06-06T06:29:27Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > Build nuke plants…but accept the cost of proper testing. Sure, if it’s only the proper testing, not the additional testing that Joe Average demands because of his irrational fear of nuclear power. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2009, 6:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/77 "2009-06-06T06:35:32Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Nuclear power is not expensive because of any technical or inherent economic reason. It’s expensive because people like you obstruct it at every step of the way. For you to then claim, as you have done, that you obstruct it because it is expensive is both disingenuous and self-referential. You may want to read the article linked to in the op. It’s taken much longer and cost much more because of > [@](#): > > … thousands of defects and deficiencies … Serious problems first arose over the vast concrete base slab for the foundation of the reactor building, which the country’s Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority found too porous and prone to corrosion. … nuclear safety inspectors in France have found cracks in the concrete base and steel reinforcements in the wrong places at the site in Flamanville. … And Jouni Silvennoinen, the project manager at Olkiluoto, said, “We have had it easy here.” Olkiluoto is at least a geologically stable site. Earthquake risks in places like China and the United States or even the threat of storm surges mean building these reactors will be even trickier elsewhere. Nope. They are not running into these costs from obstructionism. Not in nuclear powered France. Just that big construction runs into extra costs. Especially when it really needs to be done right. Again, from the article > [@](#): > > … of the 45 reactors being built around the world, 22 have encountered construction delays But the debt needs to be serviced even during the interminable delays. Ah, but you are right. If it wasn’t for all those inspectors that **Oakminster** thinks are such a good idea, then they wouldn’t have found the problems and it wouldn’t be costing so much! ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2009, 6:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/78 "2009-06-06T06:36:00Z")
For wind and solar, are you including the economic and ecologic costs of acquiring vast tracts of land and rendering them unusable for anything else ? Is it wildlife preserves or farmland you plan to sacrifice ? And the costs of the huge road network and the rest of the infrastructure necessary to maintain all of this ? And are you making your calculations using present energy usage, or multiples of our present energy usage ? Because due to the innate unreliability of solar and wind, you need to massively overbuild, otherwise you’ll have major energy shortfalls every overcast day. I serious doubt that we CAN meet our energy needs with solar and wind, much less do so more cheaply than nuclear. And it would certainly be much more destructive than nuclear. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2009, 6:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/79 "2009-06-06T06:42:45Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > So you don’t live near the factory that produces the turbines? I can’t imagine why not with that attitude. I live within 30 miles of three oil refineries, several electrical generating plants (natural gas I believe) and a DuPont chemical plant. I would much rather have a turbine construction facility instead of any one of those. In fact there is an empty US Steel facility that might do really well at that. > [@Blake](#): > > Also totally unreliable and totally unable to meet more than a tiny fraction of energy needs. > > This is the type of Disneyland comparison that some people always seem to feel the need to engage in. Nope, there is enough wind energy in the US to run the whole country several times over. Enough desert in Nevada to run the whole country several times over for solar. > [@Blake](#): > > You do realise that, right? That wind power stations would never earn enough revenue to be available if they weren’t connected to a grid primarily supplied by nuclear and coal? Nobody is going to pay more than a pittance for a power supply that only work 9 out of every 10 hours. Yes, it needs a grid. There is a grid all over the country and we can and must build more grid because of our increasing electricity needs. > [@Blake](#): > > They aren’t cheaper. They might produce some power more cheaply once they are constructed, but they definitely do not generate comparable to nuclear or coal more cheaply than nuclear or coal. > > They are not easier. They are in fact very restricted in terms of where they can be set up, and if you want power more than 9 out of every 10 hours they require a monstrous support system. In no way can they be said to be easier than nuclear. > > And they are definitely not modular. You haven’t looked at the data or thought this through. One windmill is a lot more modular than one-hundredth of a coal plant. Yes, they do need to be placed in a windy area. But the new ones need only a slight breeze. There were 8 politically friendly years from 2001 to 2009 to build nuclear. Not one plant was built in that time. It is not likely to happen. Randy Johnson getting to 350 wins is much more likely than 20 nuke plants going up in the next 20 years. It is not likely that a single one will be seriously proposed for the US. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of windmills will go up, because it is profitable and possible. > [@Blake](#): > > To generate the amount and reliability of power needed to keep the country operational. > > I haven’t heard even the most ardent supporters suggest that wind and solar has any chance whatsoever of acting as a substitute for coal, now or in the future. Nuclear can be as substitute right now. > > Because they can not generate the amount and reliability of power needed to keep the country operational. I don’t know where you got the idea that they possibly could. If not one nuclear plant was proposed or sought a license in the last 8 years, it is not reasonable to say nuclear can be a substitute right now. Duh. Poke around on the internet onto costs of building and generating and profitability. In about 2001 in invested $2k in some obscure German windmill manufacturers, and made 8 times that in two years when I did my profit taking. The market is rapidly expanding and will continue to expand. The reason it will continue to expand is that there are millions of suitable acres for windmills in this country on farms that get several thousand dollars a month in royalties. The cost of putting up and operating these windmills are small fractions of the cost of a coal plant and much smaller than nuclear. I made the investment when the manufacturers were making 1 and 2 megawatt capacity windmills (at about a million per megawatt) and delivering electricity at less than 6 cents a kilowatt. It is now less than 4 cents, and they require far less maintenance than much smaller turbines of the past, which were not economically viable. The current largest windmills cost more, but are even cheaper to operate per kilowatt hour and cheaper at 7 megawatts for the super windmills. [http://fromthereporter.com/specials/made/pages/made53.html](http://fromthereporter.com/specials/made/pages/made53.html) That is why the Solano wind farm near me has grown huge. It is getting bigger all the time. [http://fromthereporter.com/specials/made/pages/made53.html](http://fromthereporter.com/specials/made/pages/made53.html) California is now getting the super large windmills. I’m doing the costs from my head because I can no longer find that information in the intertubes, but keep in mind that windmill size and efficiency is much like ship efficiency: twice the length gives you a cube of capacity at far less than a cube of the fuel cost. Here is an estimate of around 3.5 cents per kwh. [http://www.energy.ca.gov/wind/overview.html](http://www.energy.ca.gov/wind/overview.html) I used to own PacG&E stock. They owned and operated Diablo Canyon nuclear plant (still do). Diablo Canyon sits on 750 acres and generates over two gigawatts. It cost $5.5 billion in 1984 estimates before it was finished. It cost a lot more to operate than two gigawatts of windfarm. [Diablo Canyon Timeline part 2](http://www.energy-net.org/01NUKE/DIABLO2.HTM) > [@Blake](#): > > Look, Second Stone, I’m not opposed to renewables. I think we should be making a lot more use of them. But they are only feasible as one of two scenarios. > > They can be used as to a reliable centralised power source such as coal or nuclear. Using solar for example to meet peak demand during daylight hours and sunny days, with a nuclear backup for night times and extended overcast periods. > > Or they can be coupled with massive hydro or similar schemes that provide the ability to store excess power. That has massive environmental consequences, like requiring us to dam every river in North America. It is also prohibitively expensive. > > What they an not do is provide us a cheap alternative to the reliable, environmentally friendly, safe power sources such as coal and nuclear. Here is a great article on the true costs of nuclear and the estimates of a CEO on the cost of building two gigawatts of capacity today: $15 billion. [http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/06/02/nuclear\_power\_price/index1.html](http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/06/02/nuclear_power_price/index1.html) > [@](#): > > A May report by the Bush Energy Department concluded that Americans could get 300 gigawatts of wind by 2030 at a cost of 6 to 8.5 cents per kilowatt-hour, including the cost of transmission to access existing power lines. And the cost of integrating the variable wind power into the U.S. grid would be under 0.5 cents per kilowatt-hour. (Wind turbines provide energy on average 35 percent of the time. Nukes average 90 percent availability. That means it takes 300 gigawatts of wind capacity to deliver as much electricity as about 120 gigawatts of nuclear.) \*\*Pickens recently proposed spending $6 billion to generate 4 gigawatts [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19231397/](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19231397/) in good wind blowing country. This is far cheaper and more doable than a new 2 gigawatt nuclear at $15 billion. And newer larger windmills will be even more cost effective. \*\* [New Record: World's Largest Wind Turbine (7+ Megawatts) - MetaEfficient](http://www.metaefficient.com/news/new-record-worlds-largest-wind-turbine-7-megawatts.html) Now I’ve had my money in nuke, and I was lucky to break even over 20 years. I’ve had my money in windmills and I octupled my money in 2 years. So if you think that nuclear is worth putting your money into, by all means, go ahead. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2009, 6:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/80 "2009-06-06T06:43:13Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > For wind and solar, are you including the economic and ecologic costs of acquiring vast tracts of land and rendering them unusable for anything else ? Given that most wind farms are used on land that is _also_ used for other purposes at the same time, and that some of the best resources are off-shore including in the Great Lakes, and that they in no way render the land unusable for anything else, yes, yes we are. (Utility grade solar plants may indeed take up some desert space or need to be placed on top of other structures. If one is open to distributed generation then there are huge expanses of factory rooftops that utilities may “rent”, paying the rent in discounted power pricing to the factory.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880.md?page=5)