4 ms·

>That the nuclear reactors may not phased out as soon as planned before, is a victory of the large energy companies, who want to make the most money out of thei

>That the nuclear reactors may not phased out as soon as planned before, is a victory of the large energy companies, who want to make the most money out of their investment. Still they are at best seen as a transition technology. It may be a victory on behalf of large energy companies, but I think nuclear is also a victory on behalf of the consumer/taxpayer. It's far and away the cheapest source of energy, cheaper even than coal. (PS I don't know what Germany's particular energy case looks like. They might be wrapping their nuclear power plants in sarcophagi a mile wide. But it's still generally true that nuclear is substantially cheaper than coal.)

DaniFong 17y ago
Cheaper than coal if you've already built the thing.It's a sunk cost, sure, but for policy going forward you can't ignore it.
lispm 17y ago
Finland, reactor under construction. Estimated cost 4.5 Billion Euro. Just to build one.
- catzaa 17y ago
  The question is how much an equivalent coal reactor will cost. If you have good references it would be interesting. Just by a blind Google I found this: http://www.jsonline.com/business/29482814.html http://www.jsonline.com/business/29482814.html > The 300-megawatt power plant, which would generate enough power to supply 150,000 homes, is now projected to cost $1.1 billion if it is built in southwestern Wisconsin and $1.2 billion if it is built in Portage, the utility said. That is $4 million per MW (just building). The powerplant in Finland is the first EPR so cost and time overruns is expected. It is a large one though – 1600MW (and it costs according to WP $7billion). The cost will therefore be $4.37 million per MW – about the same as a coal plant (but with no carbon dioxide causing global warming, coal costs and coal transportation costs). The problem comparing this is that building costs differ from country to country. The EPR is also the first reactor of a series and building prices increased in the 2000’s (which has now decreased). According to WP, the two VVER power plants at Tianwan cost together $3.3 billion (1000MW each). This means that the capital cost is $1.65 million per MW.
  - lispm 17y ago
    a few years ago Germany built a coal power plant with two times 920MW for 2.4 billion Euro. Well, prices of nuclear power plants are so huge that only a few have been built in the last twenty years. Even in France there was little action building new nuclear reactors. There is little chance that a new nuclear power station will be built in Germany, again. The whole technology is simply to expensive. Mining uranium is expensive and generates huge amounts of waste. Getting rid of the waste is expensive. The nuclear industry has been financed by the taxpayer with billions and billions here in Germany. Currently we are looking into cleaning a research disposal site for a billion plus. The future is described in the article and it is not nuclear. It is decentralized production of electricity and heat, energy efficiency, wind solar, biogas, etc. If France wants to invest even more into nuclear energy, let's see how they deal with the costs. They could park the waste cheap in Siberia... oh, they are doing it already. Let's see how long that works. The price is huge environmental damage.
    - catzaa 17y ago
      > a few years ago Germany built a coal power plant with two times 920MW for 2.4 billion Euro. The nuclear power stations built at Tianwan is then cheaper than that. > Well, prices of nuclear power plants are so huge that only a few have been built in the last twenty years. Nuclear power has stagnated after Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. After that a lot of governments stopped building or made regulation so tough that building one became infeasible. With the rise in awareness of global warming nuclear power is getting a second look. The problem is that the only viable alternative (with current technology here, today) is nuclear power. It is either that or coal power stations that emits a lot of Carbon Dioxide. > The future is described in the article and it is not nuclear. It is decentralized production of electricity and heat, energy efficiency, wind solar, biogas, etc. The future described in the IEEE Spectrum article is definitely not renewable. The problem is that renewable energy is simply a pipe dream in 99% of situations. All renewable energy projects are developed with incredibly large government handouts. So, either it is an increase in Carbon Dioxide emissions, a dramatic reduction in electricity usage or nuclear power. > They could park the waste cheap in Siberia... oh, they are doing it already. With reprocessing of spent fuel, the amount of nuclear waste is reduced significantly. A coal power plant also produces a large amount of nuclear waste. The only difference is that it is pushed in the air (in addition to carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide (which causes acid rain), particulate matter, etc…). With reprocessing a nuclear reactor probably produces less waste than a coal power station. > The price is huge environmental damage. Coal power plants already produce huge environmental damage (Global Warming). > If France wants to invest even more into nuclear energy, let's see how they deal with the costs. Nuclear power is a perfect fit for France since they are not blessed with coal reserves as large as that of Germany. It is better than any alternative (including importing coal or oil). Despite France’s lack of coal and a significantly smaller population, they produce as much electricity as Germany. They are also a net electricity exporter (which would indicate that they can sell their electricity for more than they can produce it).
lispm 17y ago
It's so cheap that the UK wants to increase taxes to give it to the energy producers, so that they are motivated to built nuclear power plants, which they are not. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/oct/19/nuclear-tax-on-power-bills http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/oct/19/nuclear-ta...

DaniFong 17y ago

Cheaper than coal if you've already built the thing.It's a sunk cost, sure, but for policy going forward you can't ignore it.

lispm 17y ago

Finland, reactor under construction. Estimated cost 4.5 Billion Euro. Just to build one.

catzaa 17y ago
The question is how much an equivalent coal reactor will cost. If you have good references it would be interesting. Just by a blind Google I found this: http://www.jsonline.com/business/29482814.html http://www.jsonline.com/business/29482814.html > The 300-megawatt power plant, which would generate enough power to supply 150,000 homes, is now projected to cost $1.1 billion if it is built in southwestern Wisconsin and $1.2 billion if it is built in Portage, the utility said. That is $4 million per MW (just building). The powerplant in Finland is the first EPR so cost and time overruns is expected. It is a large one though – 1600MW (and it costs according to WP $7billion). The cost will therefore be $4.37 million per MW – about the same as a coal plant (but with no carbon dioxide causing global warming, coal costs and coal transportation costs). The problem comparing this is that building costs differ from country to country. The EPR is also the first reactor of a series and building prices increased in the 2000’s (which has now decreased). According to WP, the two VVER power plants at Tianwan cost together $3.3 billion (1000MW each). This means that the capital cost is $1.65 million per MW.
- lispm 17y ago
  a few years ago Germany built a coal power plant with two times 920MW for 2.4 billion Euro. Well, prices of nuclear power plants are so huge that only a few have been built in the last twenty years. Even in France there was little action building new nuclear reactors. There is little chance that a new nuclear power station will be built in Germany, again. The whole technology is simply to expensive. Mining uranium is expensive and generates huge amounts of waste. Getting rid of the waste is expensive. The nuclear industry has been financed by the taxpayer with billions and billions here in Germany. Currently we are looking into cleaning a research disposal site for a billion plus. The future is described in the article and it is not nuclear. It is decentralized production of electricity and heat, energy efficiency, wind solar, biogas, etc. If France wants to invest even more into nuclear energy, let's see how they deal with the costs. They could park the waste cheap in Siberia... oh, they are doing it already. Let's see how long that works. The price is huge environmental damage.
  - catzaa 17y ago
    > a few years ago Germany built a coal power plant with two times 920MW for 2.4 billion Euro. The nuclear power stations built at Tianwan is then cheaper than that. > Well, prices of nuclear power plants are so huge that only a few have been built in the last twenty years. Nuclear power has stagnated after Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. After that a lot of governments stopped building or made regulation so tough that building one became infeasible. With the rise in awareness of global warming nuclear power is getting a second look. The problem is that the only viable alternative (with current technology here, today) is nuclear power. It is either that or coal power stations that emits a lot of Carbon Dioxide. > The future is described in the article and it is not nuclear. It is decentralized production of electricity and heat, energy efficiency, wind solar, biogas, etc. The future described in the IEEE Spectrum article is definitely not renewable. The problem is that renewable energy is simply a pipe dream in 99% of situations. All renewable energy projects are developed with incredibly large government handouts. So, either it is an increase in Carbon Dioxide emissions, a dramatic reduction in electricity usage or nuclear power. > They could park the waste cheap in Siberia... oh, they are doing it already. With reprocessing of spent fuel, the amount of nuclear waste is reduced significantly. A coal power plant also produces a large amount of nuclear waste. The only difference is that it is pushed in the air (in addition to carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide (which causes acid rain), particulate matter, etc…). With reprocessing a nuclear reactor probably produces less waste than a coal power station. > The price is huge environmental damage. Coal power plants already produce huge environmental damage (Global Warming). > If France wants to invest even more into nuclear energy, let's see how they deal with the costs. Nuclear power is a perfect fit for France since they are not blessed with coal reserves as large as that of Germany. It is better than any alternative (including importing coal or oil). Despite France’s lack of coal and a significantly smaller population, they produce as much electricity as Germany. They are also a net electricity exporter (which would indicate that they can sell their electricity for more than they can produce it).

lispm 17y ago

It's so cheap that the UK wants to increase taxes to give it to the energy producers, so that they are motivated to built nuclear power plants, which they are not. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/oct/19/nuclear-tax-on-power-bills http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/oct/19/nuclear-ta...