4 ms·

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:/

by 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
    Sure nuclear power stations are cheaper in China then in Germany. All kinds of things are cheaper there. Still the first two reactors cost about 3.2 billion $. Try to build them for that money in Europe. Nuclear power is no viable technology. Mining is extremely damaging (including the emission of CO2) , substances handled are extremely dangerous, safety is not resolved and waste disposal is nowhere world wide solved. The IEEE article is mostly misleading. The offshore windparks are currently being built and planned. The government recently has summed up the plans and activities. The plan is to get 15 % of electricity by 2020 based on wind. All renewable energy is then planned to be at 30%. http://www.tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/windpark102.html http://www.tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/windpark102.html http://www.bundesregierung.de/Content/DE/Artikel/2009/09/2009-09-16-offshorepark-windenergie.html http://www.bundesregierung.de/Content/DE/Artikel/2009/09/200... That's the plan just last month announced. Reprocessing of spent fuel makes the material even more dangerous. Reprocessing is already a dangerous process that generates huge amount of waste (for example the chemicals used). France spends huge amounts of tax dollars for their nuclear industry, and has largely failed to invest money in other technologies like renewable energy. Let's see how France deals with their nuclear waste: http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,654969,00.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,654969,00.... No pretty sight, I'd say. Additionally it follows the usual strategy to build large players. Many here in Germany prefer to get rid of these large companies and get large parts of the energy production decentralized. The technology is now there and just needs to applied. Volkswagen now has a program for 100000 small 'Blockheizkraftwerke' ( http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockheizkraftwerk http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockheizkraftwerk ) which will provide electricity and heating energy. They will also be able to generate electricity and provide it to the grid. Nuclear power plants are dinosaurs deserving to die.

by catzaa 17y ago

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
  Sure nuclear power stations are cheaper in China then in Germany. All kinds of things are cheaper there. Still the first two reactors cost about 3.2 billion $. Try to build them for that money in Europe. Nuclear power is no viable technology. Mining is extremely damaging (including the emission of CO2) , substances handled are extremely dangerous, safety is not resolved and waste disposal is nowhere world wide solved. The IEEE article is mostly misleading. The offshore windparks are currently being built and planned. The government recently has summed up the plans and activities. The plan is to get 15 % of electricity by 2020 based on wind. All renewable energy is then planned to be at 30%. http://www.tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/windpark102.html http://www.tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/windpark102.html http://www.bundesregierung.de/Content/DE/Artikel/2009/09/2009-09-16-offshorepark-windenergie.html http://www.bundesregierung.de/Content/DE/Artikel/2009/09/200... That's the plan just last month announced. Reprocessing of spent fuel makes the material even more dangerous. Reprocessing is already a dangerous process that generates huge amount of waste (for example the chemicals used). France spends huge amounts of tax dollars for their nuclear industry, and has largely failed to invest money in other technologies like renewable energy. Let's see how France deals with their nuclear waste: http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,654969,00.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,654969,00.... No pretty sight, I'd say. Additionally it follows the usual strategy to build large players. Many here in Germany prefer to get rid of these large companies and get large parts of the energy production decentralized. The technology is now there and just needs to applied. Volkswagen now has a program for 100000 small 'Blockheizkraftwerke' ( http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockheizkraftwerk http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockheizkraftwerk ) which will provide electricity and heating energy. They will also be able to generate electricity and provide it to the grid. Nuclear power plants are dinosaurs deserving to die.