The environment thread

[Balta1701]

expanding existing sites does not require substantial invest in power grid innfrastructure.

 

btw, where is the 100 plant number coming from? whats the current fossil fuel generating capacity in the us? id look it up but my phone sucks.

Currently there are just over 100 nuclear plants in the United States. Nuclear energy produces just over 20% of U.S. electric consumption. Over ~ a 1 year period, for the last 3 years, Nuclear has averaged 800 million megawatt hours.

 

Currently, fossil fuels, Coal and Natural Gas, produce 65% of U.S. electricity. Including oil fired plants and a few other gases that come out of wells, for the last 3 years, fossil fuel has averaged 2.9 million megawatt hours.

 

If we were to double the number of nuclear plants in the united states, that would be 200 nuclear plants (plus a lot of the current ones are old and at or beyond their lifespan). If we simply assume that those plants generate as much electric as the last generation, doubling the number of plants would push nuclear to 40% of our electric consumption. Obviously of course that's a poor assumption because a modern plant would be a little more efficient, so I'll go up to 45%-50%, assuming serious improvement in nuclear plant efficiency.

 

If we wanted to push nuclear to the point that it would replace both coal and gas, then we're talking about even more than 100+ nuclear plants, we're talking about 200-ish new nuclear plants, in addition to maintaining the 100 current ones.

 

Recent construction estimates have wound up being $10 billion or more per plant. And furthermore, those cost estimates are almost certainly underestimates, since no proposed reactor has ever come in at or below cost. That means to me that without any additional consideration of fuel supplies, waste reprocessing, connections to the power grid, meltdowns, etc., replacing fossil fuel generation with nuclear electricity over the next 40 years is a $3 trillion+ process.

 

There is a reason why private investors treat nuclear power like it's radioactive.

[southsider2k5]

Currently there are just over 100 nuclear plants in the United States. Nuclear energy produces just over 20% of U.S. electric consumption. Over ~ a 1 year period, for the last 3 years, Nuclear has averaged 800 million megawatt hours.

 

Currently, fossil fuels, Coal and Natural Gas, produce 65% of U.S. electricity. Including oil fired plants and a few other gases that come out of wells, for the last 3 years, fossil fuel has averaged 2.9 million megawatt hours.

 

If we were to double the number of nuclear plants in the united states, that would be 200 nuclear plants (plus a lot of the current ones are old and at or beyond their lifespan). If we simply assume that those plants generate as much electric as the last generation, doubling the number of plants would push nuclear to 40% of our electric consumption. Obviously of course that's a poor assumption because a modern plant would be a little more efficient, so I'll go up to 45%-50%, assuming serious improvement in nuclear plant efficiency.

 

If we wanted to push nuclear to the point that it would replace both coal and gas, then we're talking about even more than 100+ nuclear plants, we're talking about 200-ish new nuclear plants, in addition to maintaining the 100 current ones.

Recent construction estimates have wound up being $10 billion or more per plant. And furthermore, those cost estimates are almost certainly underestimates, since no proposed reactor has ever come in at or below cost. That means to me that without any additional consideration of fuel supplies, waste reprocessing, connections to the power grid, meltdowns, etc., replacing fossil fuel generation with nuclear electricity over the next 40 years is a $3 trillion+ process.

 

There is a reason why private investors treat nuclear power like it's radioactive.

 

If cost is the primary concern, they forget about any green power initiatives.

[Balta1701]

If cost is the primary concern, they forget about any green power initiatives.

If you continue to have your health insurer and your axes subsidize the fossil fuel industry, you're 100% correct. At least for now.

 

(Notably, the concentrated solar plants going in right now in California are quoting prices on the order of $.12/kwh for baseload power supplies, which is actually competitive with fossil fuels right now. Those are of course industry estimates though, so just like with nuclear, you can't assume they'll hit that mark until they hit and beat that mark.)

 

Note #2: biggest green power initiative you could possibly do, btw, continues to be simple efficiency.

[NorthSideSox72]

If cost is the primary concern, they forget about any green power initiatives.

But that's not correct either.

 

Its been studied and estimated that $1T invested in green tech over 10 years would get enough of it up and running that, when combined with existing nuclear and fossil fuel sources, the US could be energy-independent. But here is the real reason why green sources are better on cost than nuclear... the costs of solar, wind, geo, hydro and other renewables has been in consistent decline, and a massive investment like that would push them way, way down (and that doesn't even include the immense benefits in terms of jobs and the overall economy). The ongoing costs for them are tiny compared to any other source. Nuclear, on the other hand, needs much more constant funding. So they really aren't comparable on cost in the long run.

 

If SHORT TERM cost is the primary concern, then forget about green OR nuke stuff, and just keep going after oil and coal and gas. That is, if you are willing to throw away the future entirely, and focus on the next couple decades only. If you want to save money now but put the US on the path to an economic collapse not ever seen here, then by all means, stick with fossil fuels.

 

This theme has repeated itself over and over again throughout history. Civilizations and countries find cheap food/energy/water, and despite their finite limits, use it full bore until its gone, and then they die a quick death. We need to be smarter than that.

 

[StrangeSox]

Four things:

 

There's only 52 (or 54, I forget right now) plants in the country but a total of 104 operating reactors.

 

Second, industry cost estimates are below $10b/new reactor. Vogtle is estimating something like $14b for two reactors. Cost overrun comparisons to plants started in the 70's before massive regulatory increases are inaccurate both because of the stated regulatory increases after the initial budget was set and because newer reactor designs are simpler and cheaper.

 

Third, Westinghouse's AP1000 reactor is rated at about 1200 MW. The Mitsubishi APWR is around 1700 MW, as are the other designs that have been approved or are under review. Most extant plants in the US are right around 1000 MW/reactor if they've received power uprates.

 

And, finally, investors treat nuclear like it's radioactive because the demand for carbon-free power isn't there because of ineffective Democrats in Congress failing to pass legislation to accurately price fossil fuel power generation. That, and a 9% drop in electricity demand in 2009 to the lowest levels since 1987. If the Democrats had done something about AGW such that new NG plants weren't very price-attractive and if the economy didn't take a nose-dive, new nuclear plants would still be looking very attractive.

[StrangeSox]

I want to add that I see no reason for nuclear to really be at 85% of our total generating capacity. Balta, we both have the same end goal here: carbon-free renewable generation for the entire country within our lifetimes. In the short term, the only large-scale technology we have to displace coal, oil and natural gas is nuclear. So let's increase that capacity instead of building new ff plants for baseload power and at the same time keep rolling out more and more renewables.

[Balta1701]

In other words, my estimate of a 25-50% increase in electricity per plant was exactly correct.

 

Second...if any of the recently proposed reactors had held close to their initial industry cost estimates, there'd be several in construction right now. They have this nasty habit of being proposed at about $5 billion per plant and being put on hi8is a year or two later when the $17 billion price tag comes out.

[Balta1701]

I want to add that I see no reason for nuclear to really be at 85% of our total generating capacity. Balta, we both have the same end goal here: carbon-free renewable generation for the entire country within our lifetimes. In the short term, the only large-scale technology we have to displace coal, oil and natural gas is nuclear. So let's increase that capacity instead of building new ff plants for baseload power and at the same time keep rolling out more and more renewables.

In the short term? With the competition for limited equipment, the short-term for building even a handful of nuclear plants is by 2020. Scaling up...your "Short term" is 2030 or beyond. If you're giving me that as a short term, damn right there are other carbon free options.

[StrangeSox]

In other words, my estimate of a 25-50% increase in electricity per plant was exactly correct.

 

We're currently right at 1GWe for the best uprated units. New reactors are 1.2-1.7+GWe, so that'd be more like 20-70%. Anyway, that was just to bring the numbers into the discussion, not to try to refute something you've said.

 

Second...if any of the recently proposed reactors had held close to their initial industry cost estimates, there'd be several in construction right now. They have this nasty habit of being proposed at about $5 billion per plant and being put on hi8is a year or two later when the $17 billion price tag comes out.

 

That's for two reactors at $14b, which is what Vogtle is estimating, plus $3b for additional grid work. So it's still under $10b/reactor. You need to keep plant vs. unit costs in mind here. A single plant could cost $50b but have 6 reactors.

[StrangeSox]

In the short term? With the competition for limited equipment, the short-term for building even a handful of nuclear plants is by 2020. Scaling up...your "Short term" is 2030 or beyond. If you're giving me that as a short term, damn right there are other carbon free options.

 

We'll have some method of solar/wind actually providing reliable, large-scale, cost-effective baseload power deployed and operable within the next 20 years?

[StrangeSox]

For reference, the EIA places nuclear at about 1/2 of the costs of solar currently. Solar also has very high regional disparity in costs. Wind is cheaper but not available everywhere and requires significant grid updates/changes to implement. Nuclear is about 25% more than NG with carbon capture but cheaper than coal with carbon capture.

 

Important to note is that simple $/kWe comparisons aren't valid unless they include a capacity factor like these do.

 

http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/2016leveli...sts_aeo2011.pdf

 

 

[Balta1701]

For reference, the EIA places nuclear at about 1/2 of the costs of solar currently. Solar also has very high regional disparity in costs. Wind is cheaper but not available everywhere and requires significant grid updates/changes to implement. Nuclear is about 25% more than NG with carbon capture but cheaper than coal with carbon capture.

 

Important to note is that simple $/kWe comparisons aren't valid unless they include a capacity factor like these do.

 

http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/2016leveli...sts_aeo2011.pdf

The EIA also rates nuclear as costing only 10% more than coal, which is fundamentally untrue.

[StrangeSox]

The EIA also rates nuclear as costing only 10% more than coal, which is fundamentally untrue.

 

That includes operating costs. Capital costs are about 50% higher.

[Balta1701]

That includes operating costs. Capital costs are about 50% higher.

If capital costs aren't included then why don't wind and solar show at $0?

[StrangeSox]

If capital costs aren't included then why don't wind and solar show at $0?

 

Huh? I never said capital costs weren't included. I said that nuclear has an advantage in the fuel column.

 

Look at the chart again. I'm not sure what you're referring to with your 10% figure, but the closest I see is "Total System Levelized Cost" which includes capital, O&M, fuel, transmission and capacity factor. That gives 94.8 for coal and 113.9 for nuclear.

 

If you look at the "Variable O&M" column, that's where fuel costs are factored in. Wind and solar both have 0 for that column. But there's still plenty of expensive fixed O&M for both sources as well as significantly higher capital costs and transmission costs. Couple those with low capacity factors and you end up with higher total system costs than simple "cost to build xxx kW generating station".

 

 

Edited March 23, 2011 by StrangeSox

[iamshack]

One thing the renewable sources have going for them is the state-mandated RPS's. Regardless of cost, many of these wind and other projects are going to be developed and the R&D going into these projects is going to bring down the costs. Additionally, gridwork will be done to incorporate this capacity and this will lay a lot of the groundwork for future improvement.

 

The key, to me anyways, is not going to be how much nuclear plants are ultimately developed, but rather how many natural gas combined-cycle plants are developed, due to the low cost of natural gas and related large supplies.

[Balta1701]

Huh? I never said capital costs weren't included. I said that nuclear has an advantage in the fuel column.

 

Look at the chart again. I'm not sure what you're referring to with your 10% figure, but the closest I see is "Total System Levelized Cost" which includes capital, O&M, fuel, transmission and capacity factor. That gives 94.8 for coal and 113.9 for nuclear.

 

If you look at the "Variable O&M" column, that's where fuel costs are factored in. Wind and solar both have 0 for that column. But there's still plenty of expensive fixed O&M for both sources as well as significantly higher capital costs and transmission costs. Couple those with low capacity factors and you end up with higher total system costs than simple "cost to build xxx kW generating station".

I was using the maximum cost estimate column.

 

Anyway...if you use the total system levelized cost...you're back to my first objection...that nuclear costs a hell of a lot more than 20% more than coal.

 

If nuclear cost 20% more than coal, with the uncertainty in the price of every fossil fuel for the last 5+ years, there would be enormous amounts of non-governmental money pouring into nuclear.

[StrangeSox]

I was using the maximum cost estimate column.

 

That was the maximum regional costs to compare variation from region-to-region, which is more important for renewables.

 

Anyway...if you use the total system levelized cost...you're back to my first objection...that nuclear costs a hell of a lot more than 20% more than coal.

 

If nuclear cost 20% more than coal, with the uncertainty in the price of every fossil fuel for the last 5+ years, there would be enormous amounts of non-governmental money pouring into nuclear.

 

I think you're ignoring fuel costs, which are substantial for coal and relatively minimal for nuclear. You're also ignoring substantial anti-nuclear resistance in this country.

 

You're also objecting simply because you don't believe the numbers but aren't showing the basis for the objection. When you link to a story about two reactors + transmission lines to demonstrate that one reactor is more than $10b, well, it makes it look like you really don't know the economic end of this.

 

eta coal had a peak a couple of years ago but leveled out at previous levels:

 

Edited March 23, 2011 by StrangeSox

[Balta1701]

You're also objecting simply because you don't believe the numbers but aren't showing the basis for the objection. When you link to a story about two reactors + transmission lines to demonstrate that one reactor is more than $10b, well, it makes it look like you really don't know the economic end of this.

If 2 reactors at one site are quoted as being $5 billion, 1 year later are quoted as being $14 billion with $3 billion in transmission costs, and I assume that it won't be finished on time or under budget...then $10 billion a reactor, in the real world, is probably still underestimating the cost.

[StrangeSox]

One project in early planning phases. What are cost overruns for the 60 or so plants being built around the world? What's the benefit for a utility to seriously underestimate construction costs?

[StrangeSox]

VC Summer's projected cost for two new AP1000 reactors is under $10b total and they've already begun site work, unlike Progress. They've actually decreased their cost projections. Completion of the Watts Bar 2 reactor is also coming under budget thus far.

[Balta1701]

One project in early planning phases. What are cost overruns for the 60 or so plants being built around the world? What's the benefit for a utility to seriously underestimate construction costs?

Approval for Federal loan guarantees. Private funding. (A private investor would look at a $10 billion reactor and see possibility of profit, while a $15 billion complex would be a likely loss.) Convincing a public-private utility to allow the company to raise its rates to begin construction of the facility ("we've already finished 1/2 the plant, but our costs have gone up, so now we need an additional rate increase or the plant will never be finished).

 

The massive power plant under construction on muddy terrain on this Finnish island was supposed to be the showpiece of a nuclear renaissance. The most powerful reactor ever built, its modular design was supposed to make it faster and cheaper to build. And it was supposed to be safer, too.

 

But things have not gone as planned.

 

After four years of construction and thousands of defects and deficiencies, the reactor’s 3 billion euro price tag, about $4.2 billion, has climbed at least 50 percent. And while the reactor was originally meant to be completed this summer, Areva, the French company building it, and the utility that ordered it, are no longer willing to make certain predictions on when it will go online.

 

 

....

And of the 45 reactors being built around the world, 22 have encountered construction delays, according to an analysis prepared this year for the German government by Mycle Schneider, an energy analyst and a critic of the nuclear industry. He added that nine do not have official start-up dates.

 

 

....

Areva has acknowledged that the cost of a new reactor today would be as much as 6 billion euros, or $8 billion, double the price offered to the Finns. But Areva said it was not cutting any corners in Finland. The two sides have agreed to arbitration, where they are both claiming more than 1 billion euros in compensation. (Areva blames the Finnish authorities for impeding construction and increasing costs for work it agreed to complete at a fixed price.)

 

Areva announced a steep drop in earnings last year, which it blamed mostly on mounting losses from the project.

 

In addition, nuclear safety inspectors in France have found cracks in the concrete base and steel reinforcements in the wrong places at the site in Flamanville. They also have warned Électricité de France, the utility building the reactor, that welders working on the steel container were not properly qualified.

link

[StrangeSox]

Huh, imagine that, another article with costs well below $10b/reactor even after cost overruns.

 

You're not helping your case.

[StrangeSox]

Germany is speeding up its phase-out of nuclear!

 

And their carbon emissions are going to rise about 4% a year!

[Balta1701]

Huh, imagine that, another article with costs well below $10b/reactor even after cost overruns.

 

You're not helping your case.

And having to cut corners and cut back on safety to do it. And that was 2 years ago.