7 ms·

Adding more nuclear makes energy cheaper and cleaner. Add more nuclear.

Reason077 9y ago
Cleaner, yes (arguably). But not cheaper - nuclear is very expensive! The Google model suggests $2200/kW is the build price point at which all carbon emissions will be displaced. To give an idea of the cost of nuclear, the UK is currently building it's first new nuclear station since the 1990s (Hinkley Point C), at an expected cost of £20.3b ($26.3b) for 3200 MWe capacity. That's $8230/kW - almost 4x more expensive than what's needed!
- sillysaurus3 9y ago
  I wouldn't be surprised if nuclear is expensive solely because it's ostracized. The moment it becomes unfashionable to bash it is the moment R&D can drive the cost down, as in every other area of technology.
  - tertius 9y ago
    And the moment that insane regulations are lifted. http://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2017/08/10/the_nuclear_regulatory_commission_working_itself_out_of_a_job_110241.html http://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2017/08/10/the_nucle...
  - legulere 9y ago
    A lot of nuclear power plant costs is manual construction labor. Construction costs are continuing to rise, because the fields efficiency improvements are far below the general economy.
- llukas 9y ago
  What counts is LCOE not just build cost. But you're right that somehow we lost ability to build nuclear power stations without going over budget several times.
  - tertius 9y ago
    Regulations: http://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2017/08/10/the_nuclear_regulatory_commission_working_itself_out_of_a_job_110241.html http://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2017/08/10/the_nucle... Comparative costs: http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power.aspx http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-as...
- DennisP 9y ago
  You're looking at capital cost. The plants last a very long time and have low operating costs, so the kWh cost is fairly low. Playing around with Google's tool without changing any defaults, I'm able to get lower carbon emissions at the same cost by setting the nuclear level to the minimum demand, compared to using lots of wind/solar and filling up all the rest with gas.
  - Reason077 9y ago
    "You're looking at capital cost" Yes, as is the Google model. They suggest that if a 24/7 carbon-free energy source could be built at a capital cost of $2200/kW, then it would displace all carbon emissions within 27 years. My point is that capital cost of nuclear is currently far above that level, which is why little nuclear is getting built (in most of the world) today. Also, the operating cost of nuclear is high compared to most renewables! Particularly when you account for substantial end-of-life decommissioning costs, and the cost of secure waste storage far into the future. (The decommissioning costs for the UK's MOX reactors is close to $100 billion)
    - DennisP 9y ago
      Actually it's not, the model optimizes for the minimum overall LCOE (i.e. kWh cost). Their paper's abstract does say: "DOSCOE shows that to cost-effectively remove the last 10-20% of fossil fuels requires a moderate price on carbon and either low-cost nuclear power or carbon capture and sequestration. Alternatively, a hypothetical zero-carbon source needs to have a net present cost less than $2200/kW (with a 100% capacity factor) to displace existing fossil-fuel plants."
      - Reason077 9y ago
        Actually it's not, the model optimizes for the minimum overall LCOE (i.e. kWh cost). You're right. I meant that the Google abstract: the $2200/kW figure referring to capital cost. Interestingly, the UK has enormous potential for tidal lagoon energy. These developers claim that it would be the cheapest energy of all new UK power projects: http://www.tidallagoonpower.com/projects/swansea-bay/ http://www.tidallagoonpower.com/projects/swansea-bay/
- opo 9y ago
  Construction cost is not the real criteria that should be used to evaluate power. >...The levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) is a measure of a power source which attempts to compare different methods of electricity generation on a consistent basis. It is an economic assessment of the average total cost to build and operate a power-generating asset over its lifetime divided by the total energy output of the asset over that lifetime. The LCOE can also be regarded as the average minimum cost at which electricity must be sold in order to break-even over the lifetime of the project. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source According to the chart in the wikipedia article, Hinkley Point C will have a strike price of about £93 per MWH. In comparison, ground solar is 80 onshore wind is 62 and offshore wind is 102.
  - Reason077 9y ago
    According to the chart in the wikipedia article, Hinkley Point C will have a strike price of about £93 per MWH. In comparison, ground solar is 80 onshore wind is 62 and offshore wind is 102. Note that the Hinkley C strike price is set in 2012 currency and will be adjusted for inflation, so will actually be significantly higher when it goes into operation. It can't be directly compared to wind strike prices for current projects which are priced in the year they go into operation. Offshore wind prices are falling rapidly due to intense competition, new technology, and economies of scale. Nuclear, not so much! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/10/02/cut-throat-competition-is-slashing-offshore-wind-costs-to-unthin/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/10/02/cut-throat-co...
    - opo 9y ago
      What makes this difficult to compare is that a nuclear plant will likely have a capacity factor > 90% and wind will be < 40% and solar < 10& (in UK). The low capacity factors will add in lots of additional cost if wind or solar is expected to some day be a significant source of power.
      - Reason077 9y ago
        Strike prices are in terms of the energy actually produced, so they can be compared directly. You can, of course, argue that baseload is more valuable than intermittent sources, but also remember that nuclear doesn't scale well - that strike price will still be paid in the middle of the night when there is low/no demand for the energy its producing. (For that reason, storage will help us make more efficient use of nuclear as well as renewables) Wind is already a very significant energy source in the UK, supplying up to 50% of all demand on the windiest days, and 11.5% of all overall demand in 2016.
- Hasz 9y ago
  What's the lifetime of the plant? The cost to build the plant must be amortized over it's lifetime, plus the operating expenses required to operate.

Cleaner, yes (arguably). But not cheaper - nuclear is very expensive! The Google model suggests $2200/kW is the build price point at which all carbon emissions will be displaced. To give an idea of the cost of nuclear, the UK is currently building it's first new nuclear station since the 1990s (Hinkley Point C), at an expected cost of £20.3b ($26.3b) for 3200 MWe capacity. That's $8230/kW - almost 4x more expensive than what's needed!

sillysaurus3 9y ago
I wouldn't be surprised if nuclear is expensive solely because it's ostracized. The moment it becomes unfashionable to bash it is the moment R&D can drive the cost down, as in every other area of technology.
- tertius 9y ago
  And the moment that insane regulations are lifted. http://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2017/08/10/the_nuclear_regulatory_commission_working_itself_out_of_a_job_110241.html http://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2017/08/10/the_nucle...
- legulere 9y ago
  A lot of nuclear power plant costs is manual construction labor. Construction costs are continuing to rise, because the fields efficiency improvements are far below the general economy.
llukas 9y ago
What counts is LCOE not just build cost. But you're right that somehow we lost ability to build nuclear power stations without going over budget several times.
- tertius 9y ago
  Regulations: http://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2017/08/10/the_nuclear_regulatory_commission_working_itself_out_of_a_job_110241.html http://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2017/08/10/the_nucle... Comparative costs: http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power.aspx http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-as...
DennisP 9y ago
You're looking at capital cost. The plants last a very long time and have low operating costs, so the kWh cost is fairly low. Playing around with Google's tool without changing any defaults, I'm able to get lower carbon emissions at the same cost by setting the nuclear level to the minimum demand, compared to using lots of wind/solar and filling up all the rest with gas.
- Reason077 9y ago
  "You're looking at capital cost" Yes, as is the Google model. They suggest that if a 24/7 carbon-free energy source could be built at a capital cost of $2200/kW, then it would displace all carbon emissions within 27 years. My point is that capital cost of nuclear is currently far above that level, which is why little nuclear is getting built (in most of the world) today. Also, the operating cost of nuclear is high compared to most renewables! Particularly when you account for substantial end-of-life decommissioning costs, and the cost of secure waste storage far into the future. (The decommissioning costs for the UK's MOX reactors is close to $100 billion)
  - DennisP 9y ago
    Actually it's not, the model optimizes for the minimum overall LCOE (i.e. kWh cost). Their paper's abstract does say: "DOSCOE shows that to cost-effectively remove the last 10-20% of fossil fuels requires a moderate price on carbon and either low-cost nuclear power or carbon capture and sequestration. Alternatively, a hypothetical zero-carbon source needs to have a net present cost less than $2200/kW (with a 100% capacity factor) to displace existing fossil-fuel plants."
    - Reason077 9y ago
      Actually it's not, the model optimizes for the minimum overall LCOE (i.e. kWh cost). You're right. I meant that the Google abstract: the $2200/kW figure referring to capital cost. Interestingly, the UK has enormous potential for tidal lagoon energy. These developers claim that it would be the cheapest energy of all new UK power projects: http://www.tidallagoonpower.com/projects/swansea-bay/ http://www.tidallagoonpower.com/projects/swansea-bay/
opo 9y ago
Construction cost is not the real criteria that should be used to evaluate power. >...The levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) is a measure of a power source which attempts to compare different methods of electricity generation on a consistent basis. It is an economic assessment of the average total cost to build and operate a power-generating asset over its lifetime divided by the total energy output of the asset over that lifetime. The LCOE can also be regarded as the average minimum cost at which electricity must be sold in order to break-even over the lifetime of the project. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source According to the chart in the wikipedia article, Hinkley Point C will have a strike price of about £93 per MWH. In comparison, ground solar is 80 onshore wind is 62 and offshore wind is 102.
- Reason077 9y ago
  According to the chart in the wikipedia article, Hinkley Point C will have a strike price of about £93 per MWH. In comparison, ground solar is 80 onshore wind is 62 and offshore wind is 102. Note that the Hinkley C strike price is set in 2012 currency and will be adjusted for inflation, so will actually be significantly higher when it goes into operation. It can't be directly compared to wind strike prices for current projects which are priced in the year they go into operation. Offshore wind prices are falling rapidly due to intense competition, new technology, and economies of scale. Nuclear, not so much! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/10/02/cut-throat-competition-is-slashing-offshore-wind-costs-to-unthin/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/10/02/cut-throat-co...
  - opo 9y ago
    What makes this difficult to compare is that a nuclear plant will likely have a capacity factor > 90% and wind will be < 40% and solar < 10& (in UK). The low capacity factors will add in lots of additional cost if wind or solar is expected to some day be a significant source of power.
    - Reason077 9y ago
      Strike prices are in terms of the energy actually produced, so they can be compared directly. You can, of course, argue that baseload is more valuable than intermittent sources, but also remember that nuclear doesn't scale well - that strike price will still be paid in the middle of the night when there is low/no demand for the energy its producing. (For that reason, storage will help us make more efficient use of nuclear as well as renewables) Wind is already a very significant energy source in the UK, supplying up to 50% of all demand on the windiest days, and 11.5% of all overall demand in 2016.
Hasz 9y ago
What's the lifetime of the plant? The cost to build the plant must be amortized over it's lifetime, plus the operating expenses required to operate.