For the love of Pete, could no one from now on post “cost/GW” or “GW” figures when comparing baseload coal and nuclear with solar and wind without also posting the net capacity factors expected? Saying it costs X to build 2GW of wind versus Y to build 2GW of nuclear is an invalid comparison when one can have an NCF of 90% and the other as low as 20%.
Better yet, please try to only consider lifecycle $/unit energy costs. It’s a tall order, however, for reasons which I’d bore people to post about, so I understand finding accurate, iron-clad figures will be extremely difficult.
That cite, a nuclear power web site, lists lots of projections and estimates, the one you mention (from 2005) and one, the more recent Connecticut Integrated Resource Plan, that puts nuclear at 8.34 cent/kWh. A few more with different estimates including a 2007 set for the EU that has nuclear as low as 5.4 cents/kWh and wind there as low as 4.7 cents/kWh.
Of course I’ve also cited a source that pegs nuclear as high as 22 cents/kWh.
The problem with making these estimates is that accurate estimates of capital costs and time have been elusive at best and, to quote your cite
Also noted in your cite is
Please note that meanwhile costs for wind turbines have been decreasing and that those figures did not account for the huge cost overruns that new nuclear construction is experiencing, as referenced in the op.
Which was the point of the op:
Those estimates provided by such sources as your cite’s sponsor, the World Nuclear Organization, are predicated upon cost predictions for capital and construction that are turning out to be way lowballing the real world numbers according to the sourced article cited in the op. The project manager of one of these new plants (hardly a radical anti-nuker) believes that other nuclear projects, such as those in the States, “will be even trickier”
Sorry if the sarcasm was not clear. No, I do not believe that inspectors testing that the foundations are secure and that reinforcements are where they are supposed to be is obstructionism. Maybe I should use :rolleyes: for you.
Maybe I should use :rolleyes: for you.
Maybe I should use :rolleyes: for you.
Anyway.
I have no problem with nuclear if it turns out to be cost effective so long as its only “subsidy” is the ability of its owners to sell carbon credits or to compete without a carbon tax that adequately prices carbon. I have no problem with a fast track approval process for a standardized design plant. If the figures that you cherry-pick are accurate then producers should have no problem finding private capital sources with no need for the Feds to absorb the risk or the capital costs. More power (heh) to them if they can compete against wind or coal or solar or whatever on that playing field. The fact is however that the capital cost is huge risk. Utilities vote with their pocketbooks - they are not building even enough nuclear to replace plants that are aging out and won’t unless the Feds subsidize them by absorbing that capital cost and risk.
You may also want to listen to this NPR Science Friday podcast that frames it well: Should the Federal government subsidize the costs of constructing new nuclear power plants or should we price carbon and let the technologies compete?
You’re not–I’ve been suitably chastised for making that mistake–and it would not be worth your time to go into a long dissertation based upon extensive experience in the power generation industry regarding the lifecycle costs, regulatory fluctuations, comparison of environmental impact between coal, oil, and nuclear, the capacity of degree of impact of renewable power sources, the the status of novel and developing reactor designs to improve failsafe operation versus scaremongering, et cetera, only to have your educated post ignored by people who don’t want actual information to intrude upon their kneejerk responses.
'Tis better simply to point out that nuclear fission power generation is neither the panacea to work energy demand as promoted by some, nor the apocalyptic risk hyperbolically feared by others, and then step back and watch the circus continue.
And as has been said repeatedly, the cost of nuclear is kept artificially high by the anti-nuke fanatics. Just wait until if and when the wind-and-solar types actually try to cover massive parts of the country with panels and windmills and they’ll get the same reaction. Or worse, since they’ll do more damage.
Part of the problem is that the same questions get asked and answered over years and years, and it takes a lot of effort to put something together that’s a comprehensive post. I’ve made some energy-related posts in the past that took me 4 solid hours to put together, only to either a) be ignored, or b) have the thread suddenly die, then start up again the next month as if nothing happened.
If there existed something like an SDMB-Wiki, then some of the best, most comprehensive answers could be collected and referred to, thus preventing repetition. Think of what it could do for gun control threads, where every month someone wades in and starts asserting semi-autos are “machine guns”, a gun in the house is 1e+28 times as likely to kill you, etc. I guess GD would be a much quieter place.
FWIW Una I’ve always read your posts with great interest and appreciated them mightily. I have been educated by them even when I have disagreed with some of your conclusions. I wouldn’t bother repeating such effort either however if I was you. In that old thread I linked to earlier you had several that were worthy of sticky links including this one and randomfoo’s brief posting here included this one that should also get on that list. Really that thread had covered most of these issues well and this thread was only adding the additional data point of how more expensive than predicted new nuclear plant construction is turning out to be.
Der Trihs, you can claim that the cost is artificially high and all due to “anti-nuke fanatics” all you like but you have yet to substantiate that false claim and the costs referenced in the op have nothing to due with anti-nuke forces.
Enrico Fermi Nuclear Generating Station - Wikipedia This is the beauty they built near me. It has gobbled up tax dollars and never delivered full capacity. It has been shut down at a cost of 132 billion dollars. Yes indeed ,it is proven technology. It is just Luddites who dare to question the absolute safety of nuke plants.
I’m sorry I’ve been complaining and not contributing. I’ve been considering putting up a “page(s) o’ data” about power topics so folks in the future could have ready access to some of the hard data (or links) and dig deeper into the question of "what is the right answer. You know, so folks talking about wind v. nuclear don’t have to start from scratch Googling around. I think I may work on that this summer, and put it in my signature block.
Oh, horseshit. It was not “shut down at a cost of 132 billion dollars.” Your own link says it was repaired for 132 MILLION dollars. Even the entire freaking Hanford cite, a disaster area incomparable with Fermi, will only cost $50B by 2035.[sup]1[/sup]
You see, this is what I’m talking about. Posters are allowed to repeatedly over time either deliberately or sloppily post information which is incorrect, misleading, deceptive, or outright false, and nothing can be done because they “probably believe it?” You can bet that if no one responded to gonzomax’s “cite” above, a year from now “someone” would “cite” it as a “fact” in a future “debate” on here.
Guizzo, Erico. “The Atomic Fortress that Time Forgot.” IEEE Spectrum (April, 2005): 42-49.
Una do you happen to have good estimates of how much an American version pebble bed reactor(s) would actually cost over the reactor lifecycle? I’ve been unable to find anything believable for that.
http://www.ontariotenants.ca/electricity/articles/2003/cp-03g17.phtml I was in this plant a few years ago. Many in Canada are rethinking their commitment to nuke since it is unreliable and had been expensive to fix the faults and breakdowns. It has not lived up to its promise. Try and insure a plant and see how far you get. If they were so safe every insurance company would be lining up to insure them and get the free money.
Lets say it takes 10 steps to build a nuke plant. What I want to do is build step 1, then test/inspect step 1 to verify it was completed correctly, according to design spec. Then build step 2, test/inspect it, and so on. This should happen with pretty much any construction project. They do it for building roads. With nukes, because the downside is potentially really bad, the construction has to be especially robust. The contractors can’t be allowed to cut corners, use cheaper materials, cover up shoddy work, etc. One of the linked articles talks about how inspections catch all kinds of problems…ground settling, faulty construction, etc. That stuff has to be caught and corrected.
It should be designed, as you say it is, in such a way as to withstand intentional attacks as well as operator error. You can’t actually fly a plane into it to see what happens…but engineers can run simulations against the design to see what would happen.
I don’t think anyone has a good handle on the lifecycle cost for production PBMR type reactors at this point, as a significant portion of the cost is the production of the pebble-ized fuel elements themselves. So far, no large scale production of fuel elements has been done, and the practical research designs so far have had significant problems with thermal stress and contamination of fuel elements, so the bugs are far from worked out. PBR- and PBMR-type reactors offer the potential for scalable, economic, and practically failsafe designs, but they also have some significant drawbacks. These include the requirement for very tight control on the mechanical properties and porosity of the pyrolytic graphite sheath and the protective silicon carbide capsule, initial annealing of the graphite to prevent the accumulation of defects from the Wigner effect, the use of very high pressure high temperature helium as a coolant, significant lead-lag feedback in control, the necessity to mechanical cycle the fuel elements through the system to maintain efficiency, and the difficulty of recovering and reprocessing encapsulated fuel for future use which results in a once-through uranium fuel cycle. The last isn’t a significant issue currently because it is more economical and safer to process virgin fuel material than to reprocess used fuel for reuse in commercial reactors, but greater dependence upon uranium ore for power generation may change that balance and recovery of fuel elements for reprocessing or fuel breeding may become viable and necessary in the future.
The Integral Fast Reactor is probably the best move toward a failsafe fuel breeding reactor but still has significant hazard issues and requires technological development to demonstrate the viability of the fuel cycle. Currently, there is no fiscal justification for it, and opposition to a liquid metal cooled reactor is very strong owing to the fire in Chernobyl #4 and other accidents and problems. It is unlikely any full scale development could be politically approved regardless of whether the technical issues and risks could be adequately addressed.
How about you just man up and admit that you were wrong? Or is your ego too big to discuss anything in a rational fashion?
I’m sure your “Hall Monitor” badge is in the mail. Also cute that you find absolutely nothing anywhere in this thread deliberately antagonistic towards me.
Cause the Cubans said that one of the things they would do if the US invaded Cuba, was to at least try and bomb that reactor in florida. Its a different set of parameters that the reactor theoretically should not have to worry about ,but it was a real world threat.
When people see the nuke plant , the reactor(s) only take up a small amount of space, having the building designed in such a way that would allow the building to deflect the blast of a 500 pound bomb would be a good thing.
I will take your word on the reactor, but most of the incidents at previous sites have probably been in the nature of high pressure pipes that have let go , venting steam inside the containment area if nothing else. Its possible that we are not going to get steel that will not erode over the course of years of operations, but we should be able to at do onsite non-destruct weld testing , and spring for steel plumbing that will show visible indicators of stressed metal.
We may have that already, I dont know off hand. i figure we have amassed about 50 years worth of safety data on nuclear reactor safety and what not, so I dont think the testing should be that expensive.
