4 ms·

In the US, nuclear power is already cheaper than coal because we get most of it from old plants that have already paid for their construction costs, so now we'r

In the US, nuclear power is already cheaper than coal because we get most of it from old plants that have already paid for their construction costs, so now we're just paying operating and maintenance costs. Now imagine how much the situation would improve with any of these way of decreasing nuclear costs (in order of increasing radicalness): * Mass-production of modular conventional reactors, like China is gearing up to do with AP1000 plants. * Mass-production of smaller fourth-generation reactors, such as pebble beds (again, China is doing this) or some of the various breeder reactors, like the Hyperion Power Module. * The same as above, but with Brayton-cycle gas turbines instead of steam turbines. This leads to simplified reactors and higher thermodynamic efficiency and quite significantly lower costs. * The same as above, and then you stick them on a boat. This lets you float them to wherever they're needed, and the sea-water handles their cooling needs without costly cooling towers, and they can provide water desalination with waste heat. A nuclear aircraft carrier is already providing large amounts of fresh water to Haiti, and other countries are having serious water problems, and would pay good money for this. More here: http://finger-tree.blogspot.com/2009/11/floating-nuclear-plants-for-cheap-power.html http://finger-tree.blogspot.com/2009/11/floating-nuclear-pla... * Liquid fluoride thorium reactors. I love LFTRs; they're so damn beautiful that I'd recommend having a look at them just to appreciate the cleverness. They can be made at any size, they're self-regulating, they can load-follow beautifully, they can use supercritical CO2 turbines for cooling, the waste is tiny and becomes safe after about 500 years, and the fuel supply is enormous.

DaniFong 17y ago
But how do the costs of any of the above compare to the cost of building a wind turbine? Even taking the fuel and operations and maintenance cost to be free, how does one compare the capital cost against other renewables where you don't pay for fuel? If you use a Brayton-cycle gas turbine for a nuclear reactor, for example, now heat exchange to the gas becomes the biggest issue. And even the most optimized gas peaker turbine plants cost $500/kw.
- sketerpot 17y ago
  The capital costs per kilowatt of average power generation are surprisingly good for nuclear. I don't have time to look up the figures now (sorry) but last time I checked, wind was more expensive to build average capacity than nuclear, even when you compared the cost of just the wind turbines with the complete cost of nuke plants. > If you use a Brayton-cycle gas turbine for a nuclear reactor, for example, now heat exchange to the gas becomes the biggest issue. And even the most optimized gas peaker turbine plants cost $500/kw. Heat exchange to the gas is an issue, but it's the sort of issue that nuclear reactor designers have a lot of experience solving. The Chinese pebble bed reactors, for example, are cooled with helium gas, and they don't seem to have much trouble with that. As for the cost of the turbines themselves, in general Brayton-cycle gas turbines are cheaper than steam turbines, and supercritical CO2 gas turbines are remarkably small, so they'll probably be cheaper than the conventional ones. Even conventional gas turbines would work, though. Of course, when competing with natural gas burners, the fuel cost is a huge issue. Natural gas fuel costs are vastly higher than those of nuclear plants (per kilowatt-hour, of course). I'm not sure I answered what you were saying, but I hope I covered something interesting.
  - DaniFong 17y ago
    Prof. Marc Jacobson of Stanford pegs the cost of wind power at an amortized cost of wind at 3 - 4 cents per kwhr. There are independent indications that they're around 3.5 - 4 cents per kwhr. Nuclear can compete with that? Last I checked it was around 12 - 20 cents per kwhr... http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/energy.pdf http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/energy.pdf

DaniFong 17y ago

But how do the costs of any of the above compare to the cost of building a wind turbine? Even taking the fuel and operations and maintenance cost to be free, how does one compare the capital cost against other renewables where you don't pay for fuel? If you use a Brayton-cycle gas turbine for a nuclear reactor, for example, now heat exchange to the gas becomes the biggest issue. And even the most optimized gas peaker turbine plants cost $500/kw.

sketerpot 17y ago
The capital costs per kilowatt of average power generation are surprisingly good for nuclear. I don't have time to look up the figures now (sorry) but last time I checked, wind was more expensive to build average capacity than nuclear, even when you compared the cost of just the wind turbines with the complete cost of nuke plants. > If you use a Brayton-cycle gas turbine for a nuclear reactor, for example, now heat exchange to the gas becomes the biggest issue. And even the most optimized gas peaker turbine plants cost $500/kw. Heat exchange to the gas is an issue, but it's the sort of issue that nuclear reactor designers have a lot of experience solving. The Chinese pebble bed reactors, for example, are cooled with helium gas, and they don't seem to have much trouble with that. As for the cost of the turbines themselves, in general Brayton-cycle gas turbines are cheaper than steam turbines, and supercritical CO2 gas turbines are remarkably small, so they'll probably be cheaper than the conventional ones. Even conventional gas turbines would work, though. Of course, when competing with natural gas burners, the fuel cost is a huge issue. Natural gas fuel costs are vastly higher than those of nuclear plants (per kilowatt-hour, of course). I'm not sure I answered what you were saying, but I hope I covered something interesting.
- DaniFong 17y ago
  Prof. Marc Jacobson of Stanford pegs the cost of wind power at an amortized cost of wind at 3 - 4 cents per kwhr. There are independent indications that they're around 3.5 - 4 cents per kwhr. Nuclear can compete with that? Last I checked it was around 12 - 20 cents per kwhr... http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/energy.pdf http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/energy.pdf