Rod, the footnote says that the production costs is O&M + fuel. It doesn't appear that capital costs are included.
Jess - That's right. The graphs are for production costs, which by definition do not include capital costs. Since initial capital costs vary depending on location, labor rates, material inputs, duration of construction and interest costs, they vary a great deal from project to project.
When one compares marginal production costs, one gets a better idea for the asymptote that can be approached once capital investments are paid off. Since nuclear plants can operate for many decades and most operating plants are paid off, that is a reasonable basis for comparison. That is especially true considering the fact that there is little expectation that any of today's operating plants will shut down any time in the next couple of decades.
In the US, most power plants are so old that they've already paid off their amortized capital cost. Although new power plants are likely to be expensive, nuclear power plants usually generate enough revenue to pay off the capital cost within a decade, although these cost are usually spread out over the predicted life-time of the plant which is now up to 60 years. But the current generation of nuclear power plants will probably last 80 to 100 years.
Ironically, if we were allowed to build the hundreds of nuclear power plants that we really need in the US over the next 30 or 40 years, the capital cost would probably drop dramatically.
Hello, I'm a frequent lurker here.
I've compiled a few life-cycle costs studies - as far as I understand, everything included - construction, operation, fuel, decommissioning. Some academic studies, some governmental, some NGO. They run across different power sources, so you have direct comparisons of nuclear vs. everything else. I put them in a table:
http://uvdiv.blogspot.com/2009/0...st-
studies.html
Hope this is useful.
uvdiv, You have done a great job, and have made a great contribution to the discussion of future energy cost.
Hawaii really needs a nuclear plant. 17.26 cents?!
Nuclear energy has a bad name, and it really does not deserve it. As far as clean energy goes, it is the best large scale option at the moment and as shown here, one of the cheapest.
Zack - I believe that Hawaii would be a perfect location for some moderate sized nuclear plants along the lines of the Hyperion Power Module, the NuScale, or B&W's mPower™. It is currently almost completely dependent on imported oil burned in diesel engines or old steam plants, yet it has a large base of nuclear trained people who have either operated or repaired nuclear powered ships for several decades. It is also quite used to having nuclear reactors operating in Honolulu.
Sure beats windmills or solar panels when it comes to reliably supplying the tourist economy!
While coal is the cheapest fuel to burn, legislation will drive the capital cost of new plants higher and higher.
I doubt that anyone has plans for any new coal plants. I would like someone to confirm.
Cheap nuclear only needs 2 things.
1. A fixed design with no changes. They have spent the last 20 years doing this.
2. A quick build schedule with no delay. This is a legislative issue. We know that a nuke plant can be built in 4 years. Laws need to require a complete environmental assessment. Once the assessment is approved nothing should stop the construction. As long as the plant is built to speck
If you can get both the greens and the government on side, new nuclear can be the cheapest source of power. It is already the cleanest.
Richard - the challenge in getting the "greens" and the government to follow your prescription is that both have well established ties to the losers in the equation - fossil fuel interests.
When nuclear fission succeeds in capturing market share, fossil fuel combustion loses. Nuclear fission backers have to recognize this threat to their success and figure out ways to avoid allowing their natural opposition to interfere with new developments. One of the reasons that I favor smaller reactors is that there are fewer points in the manufacturing phase that can be used to slow down the completion process and drive up the costs.
When you are dependent on a large, mobile work force at a construction site that must complete detailed work under tight specifications, there are plenty of ways to slow down the progress and make life difficult for the project managers. That is one of the factors that stopped the first Nuclear Age. (Not the only one, but a contributor.)
Hawaii is also divided between several islands. I interview (while on vacation) at Maui Electric. The whole island has about 60MWs of load. 40MW are run off of a traditional, but small, conventional boiler (burning diesel) and the rest one GT and a dozen or so diesel-electric generators. Tons of diesel used there. The steam boiler, while old, is kept online because it's governor valves allow for frequency/speed control for the grid as it's naturally responsive to frequency deviations.
3 25MW LFTRs would be *ideal* for Maui. Despite all the talk about renewables, geothermal and hydro is *minimal* at best. The only place serious geothermal could be used would be on the Big Island...and then there is the danger of any plant getting run over by molten lava!
David
Green Peace Canada's website say that the single biggest problem the world is Global Warming. The biggest single solution for the world (Not Global Warming) is to stop all use of Nuclear. If you dig into the website you learn that coal power has the most Co2 emission. But nowhere do they protest coal powered generating plants. In the past, they have protests against new coal power exports, demand environmental upgrades, etc. But their anti-coal activity is surprisingly silent.
While there is no proof of a Coal-Green Peace conspiracy, I am a strong believer that if the shoe fits, then it likely is true. You have already made may other connections including politics in Germany.
The Green Party in the UK now is on side with Nuclear. One founder of Green Peace Canada is a supporter. One thing that I know about any political organization is that lobbyists only have influence as long as the core supporters agree with the lobbyist. Environmental groups won't get the support of people if environmentalist contradict them.
The same goes with the government. If the people and the activists support something, a lobby group would have a harder time to stop something. It also helps to have a strong political leader willing to make things right.
IMHO education from people like you and time is what will make the difference.
Your point on small reactors is well taken. I can see dropping off a pre-made reactor as a pretty fast way to get a nuclear plant up an going.
Richard, Greenpeace is...ecclectic...in their opposition to coal. They do oppose coal and I think it does us a disservice to think that on THIS issue (as opposed to "opposition" to fossil in general) they don't have a genuine distaste for coal.
It's in the obvious *contradiction* of their wanting to get rid of coal and their inability to support nuclear as the only way to do it one the one hand, and their often centrifugal logic that thinks nuclear is *worse* than coal.
IMO, they are essentially neo-Luddites, basing their whole perspective on the Lovin's "Energy Starvation" scenarios of conservation and efficiency and ZERO GROWTH.
David
Richard, asfar as I can see the official position of the Green Party of the UK is still anti-nuclear - for example, from March: http://www.greenparty.org.uk/
ass...ission_GPEW.doc
(It's interesting to note that their "case against" seems to rest on an erroneous reading of one disputed committee report to claim that the health effects are unacceptable... and that, reading between the lines, the antinukes on the cimmittee didn't feel that report was condemnatory enough but their dissenting statements were too full of falsehood for the committee to include!)
It turns out that the UK Green Party was not supporting Nuclear, it was just one candidate. He is no longer a political candidate for the Green Party. I was a victim of either bad reporting from the press, or just getting new from reading headlines only.
I remain suspicious that the Green Party is only anti-coal as cover for its true position of being supportive of both black and brown coal consumption - especially if it is mined by unionized German miners.
Rod, I think you initial assessment of the "Green-Gas Alliance" you noted years ago is probably the truth.
I've never really seen any overt coal support by Greens, either Green Party of Greenpeace.
However, in Germany, that Green Party *did* vote to support more coal plants as part of their stupid phaseout of nuclear energy. But in looking at even the GPD web site, it seems if anything they hide this well known fact from their supporters.
David - I have been pretty well schooled in the art of deception. Expressing overt support, or poking your periscope above the surface for too long, puts your tactical advantage at severe risk.
When I look closely at the sweep of German politics and energy production, it is difficult to avoid drawing the conclusion that I have drawn.
For a hint on the relationship between lignite mining, the nuclear phase out, and the Green Party in Germany, please read Germany: Europe's CO2 Capital Clings to Power Plants That Put It on Map.
Notice, for example, the party affiliation of the parliamentary representative of North Rhine-Westphalia, the woman who advocates a rapid shift from lignite renewable energy sources like wind and solar. Notice also the following quote:
"The phase-out of nuclear power, mandated by the Green Party, is driving demand for lignite, Roels says. A law passed by the previous government, in which the Greens were a junior partner, calls for an end to nuclear power generation by 2021. "
Commenting by HaloScan
