3 ms·

Compare the cost of just one of those reactors... to the cost of a fully installed windmill in Iowa. Heck, go ahead and compare the cost of one of those react

Compare the cost of just one of those reactors... to the cost of a fully installed windmill in Iowa. Heck, go ahead and compare the cost of one of those reactors to a fully installed wind FARM in Iowa, or Wisconsin, or wherever. There's just no comparison. Some of these windfarms are producing at, what? $0.02 a kWh? Maybe $0.03? And that's before you even count subsidies or tax breaks. It's no wonder some go to $0.00 a kWh, and some even go negative. You sound like you know something about what it takes to build a reactor. So I'm assuming you understand the costs there. Which likely means that you think a windmill costs far more than a windmill actually costs. Nuclear is MUCH more expensive in terms of capital outlay, and it is prohibitively expensive in terms of operating costs when compared with wind or solar. The only reason the reactors we're discussing are being built is because the government is doing it. This is what would have to happen to make nuclear a reality in our future power mix. The government would have to pay for it. It's too expensive for anyone else to try without government assurances.

belorn 8y ago
When people talk about cost of nuclear vs wind the issue is that you can not go to a wind farm and get a contract that give 24/7 energy at a set level for $0.02 kWh. What you get is a contract that give you $0.02 kWh when the wind farm is producing at peak capacity, and then you have to buy the somewhat more expensive coal and gas produced energy whenever the wind is not at peak capacity. It is like comparing the transportation cost of rail vs trucks. It is obvious that the price per km is cheaper for the rail. If what you want is to transport goods between two railway stations that has excess rail capacity it going to be extremely cheap compared to have a truck driver. $ per kWh is not relevant. $ per contracted supply of continuous power 24/7 is. The video even mention the wind + solar + battery, but is questionably if the average output of all three puts it better than nuclear. A benefit however over nuclear is that such constellation can be created independent of each other with shorter investment spans that nuclear.
credit_guy 8y ago
> Compare the cost of just one of those reactors... It's very likely the cost and various other pieces of information about US Navy nuclear reactors is classified, but estimations exist. I found in [1] that a submarine reactor costs about $100MM and a carrier one about $200MM. The S6G reactor that equips the Los Angeles class submarines (very popular, 62 built, 32 still active [2]) appears to have a power output of 165 MW thermal, and about 30 MW electric. This makes it roughly $3MM per MW, not counting the fact that much more of the thermal power could be converted to electricity if that was desired. > to the cost of a fully installed windmill in Iowa. What I could find online [3] is that the cost of utility scale wind turbines ranges between $1.3MM and $2.2MM per MW. This is the same order of magnitude as the $3MM/MW for submarine nuclear reactors. >Nuclear is MUCH more expensive in terms of capital outlay Sure, but the question was if this capital outlay is because of some inherent technological difficulties, or because of regulations. Since naval nuclear reactors don't appear to be expensive, the natural hypothesis is that the capital outlays are driven primarily by regulations. > prohibitively expensive in terms of operating costs A naval reactor is either refueled only once during its lifetime or not at all. The main operating cost is the final dismantling. The running cost is virtually zero. >The government would have to pay for it. Bill Gates decided to just spend his money on this, and he found China as a willing partner. He figured he didn't need government assistance. Money wise he was probably right. But the DOE killed his project in October for national security reasons [4]: "TerraPower, the company I started 10 years ago, uses an approach called a traveling wave reactor that is safe, prevents proliferation, and produces very little waste. We had hoped to build a pilot project in China, but recent policy changes here in the U.S. have made that unlikely. We may be able to build it in the United States if the funding and regulatory changes that I mentioned earlier happen. The world needs to be working on lots of solutions to stop climate change. Advanced nuclear is one, and I hope to persuade U.S. leaders to get into the game." The government doesn't have to pay for it, but it would be nice for it not to stand in the way of people who are willing to pay for it themselves. [1]http://mragheb.com/NPRE%20402%20ME%20405%20Nuclear%20Power%20Engineering/Nuclear%20Marine%20Propulsion.pdf http://mragheb.com/NPRE%20402%20ME%20405%20Nuclear%20Power%2... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles-class_submarine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles-class_submarine [3] http://www.windustry.org/how_much_do_wind_turbines_cost http://www.windustry.org/how_much_do_wind_turbines_cost [4] https://www.gatesnotes.com/About-Bill-Gates/Year-in-Review-2018?WT.mc_id=12_29_2018_21_YIR2018_BG-media_&WT.tsrc=BGmedia https://www.gatesnotes.com/About-Bill-Gates/Year-in-Review-2...

belorn 8y ago

When people talk about cost of nuclear vs wind the issue is that you can not go to a wind farm and get a contract that give 24/7 energy at a set level for $0.02 kWh. What you get is a contract that give you $0.02 kWh when the wind farm is producing at peak capacity, and then you have to buy the somewhat more expensive coal and gas produced energy whenever the wind is not at peak capacity. It is like comparing the transportation cost of rail vs trucks. It is obvious that the price per km is cheaper for the rail. If what you want is to transport goods between two railway stations that has excess rail capacity it going to be extremely cheap compared to have a truck driver. $ per kWh is not relevant. $ per contracted supply of continuous power 24/7 is. The video even mention the wind + solar + battery, but is questionably if the average output of all three puts it better than nuclear. A benefit however over nuclear is that such constellation can be created independent of each other with shorter investment spans that nuclear.

credit_guy 8y ago

> Compare the cost of just one of those reactors... It's very likely the cost and various other pieces of information about US Navy nuclear reactors is classified, but estimations exist. I found in [1] that a submarine reactor costs about $100MM and a carrier one about $200MM. The S6G reactor that equips the Los Angeles class submarines (very popular, 62 built, 32 still active [2]) appears to have a power output of 165 MW thermal, and about 30 MW electric. This makes it roughly $3MM per MW, not counting the fact that much more of the thermal power could be converted to electricity if that was desired. > to the cost of a fully installed windmill in Iowa. What I could find online [3] is that the cost of utility scale wind turbines ranges between $1.3MM and $2.2MM per MW. This is the same order of magnitude as the $3MM/MW for submarine nuclear reactors. >Nuclear is MUCH more expensive in terms of capital outlay Sure, but the question was if this capital outlay is because of some inherent technological difficulties, or because of regulations. Since naval nuclear reactors don't appear to be expensive, the natural hypothesis is that the capital outlays are driven primarily by regulations. > prohibitively expensive in terms of operating costs A naval reactor is either refueled only once during its lifetime or not at all. The main operating cost is the final dismantling. The running cost is virtually zero. >The government would have to pay for it. Bill Gates decided to just spend his money on this, and he found China as a willing partner. He figured he didn't need government assistance. Money wise he was probably right. But the DOE killed his project in October for national security reasons [4]: "TerraPower, the company I started 10 years ago, uses an approach called a traveling wave reactor that is safe, prevents proliferation, and produces very little waste. We had hoped to build a pilot project in China, but recent policy changes here in the U.S. have made that unlikely. We may be able to build it in the United States if the funding and regulatory changes that I mentioned earlier happen. The world needs to be working on lots of solutions to stop climate change. Advanced nuclear is one, and I hope to persuade U.S. leaders to get into the game." The government doesn't have to pay for it, but it would be nice for it not to stand in the way of people who are willing to pay for it themselves. [1]http://mragheb.com/NPRE%20402%20ME%20405%20Nuclear%20Power%20Engineering/Nuclear%20Marine%20Propulsion.pdf http://mragheb.com/NPRE%20402%20ME%20405%20Nuclear%20Power%2... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles-class_submarine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles-class_submarine [3] http://www.windustry.org/how_much_do_wind_turbines_cost http://www.windustry.org/how_much_do_wind_turbines_cost [4] https://www.gatesnotes.com/About-Bill-Gates/Year-in-Review-2018?WT.mc_id=12_29_2018_21_YIR2018_BG-media_&WT.tsrc=BGmedia https://www.gatesnotes.com/About-Bill-Gates/Year-in-Review-2...