Is solar really four times the cost of nuclear? No, but…

[wtmusic]

"Nobody seems to have noticed, in amongst all the hoopla about shale gas and whatnot, that the UK government has just announced the proposed ‘strike prices’ to be paid for electricity generated by large-scale renewables from next year until 2019.

These numbers are especially important because one of the most thorny aspects of the energy debate is around how much the different options might cost. The fallback argument for anti-nuclear campaigners, for instance, is that nuclear power is far, far too expensive to deliver the low-carbon power we need on any kind of realistic scale. And certainly the dramatic cost overruns seen at Flamanville and Olkiluoto do give serious cause for concern about the potential cost escalations of new nuclear, in Europe at least.

<>

Here’s the important point about the new figures: nuclear is likely to be highly competitive with all the renewables, and may still be the cheapest option. Current negotiations around the ‘strike price’ to be paid for nuclear-generated electricity from Hinkley Point C are understood to be converging on a price in the £90-100 range – my guess is that the final deal will see the UK Government paying just under £95 per megawatt-hour for nuclear electricity under the new system (I’d put money on this – but not much!). This means that nuclear will cost about the same as onshore wind, and may even be slightly cheaper, as onshore wind has a strike price of £100 until 2017, after which it falls to £95."

http://www.marklynas.org/2013/06/is-solar-really-four-times-the-cost-of-nuclear-no-but/

[msongs]

1. people of chernobyl are anxiously awaiting the arrival of "cheap, low cost" nuclear nt

[wtmusic]

2. They didn't have to wait at all.

"2004 Ukraine commissioned two large new reactors. The government plans to maintain nuclear share in electricity production to 2030, which will involve substantial new build."

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-T-Z/Ukraine/#.Uc5bFVOa3nA

After Chernobyl Unit #4 blew up, Units #1, #2, and #3 continued to provide power to the community for almost a decade. People went to work everyday right next to the largest nuclear accident in history. Funny how Americans' imaginations gets carried away.

Betcha didn't know that.

[Lugal Zaggesi]

4. Gee, nuclear power for the hospitals

caring for all the children born with birth defects.
Funny how things all work out in the end, eh ?



But don't let your American imagination get carried away with the whole "birth defect" thing - these were just Commie kids.

[wtmusic]

6. Oh please...you and Helen Caldicott

pull out pictures of deformed children, with zero evidence they were even exposed, and expect people to get all weepy like you.

Grow up.

[Lugal Zaggesi]

7. Oh please...you and Glenn Beck

refuse to believe any sources of information not on your short "approved to support my Worldview" list.

Prove those kids were not affected by the elevated levels of radiation in the Chernobyl area - maybe it's all a film school mockumentary using makeup and actors. Get back to me with your exposé .

Until then.
Grow up.

[wtmusic]

8. Check this out - this dude grew up across the street from the reactor

Do I have your Worldview Approval?

[BlueToTheBone]

26. He looks deformed,

with a little pin head.

[OKIsItJustMe]

23. Kiev, Ukraine, 20 April 2011 - Secretary-General's remarks at "25 Years after Chernobyl Catastrophe:

http://www.un.org/sg/statements/?nid=5211

[font face=Serif][font size=5]Kiev, Ukraine, 20 April 2011 - Secretary-General's remarks at "25 Years after Chernobyl Catastrophe: Safety for the Future" conference[/font]

[font size=3]…

The 6,000 children whose health was seriously undermined by thyroid cancer

The more than 330,000 people uprooted from local towns and villages

The 600,000 recovery workers

The six million people who continue to live in affected communities of Belarus, Russian Federation and Ukraine

…[/font][/font]

[wtmusic]

24. Thyroid cancer from Chernobyl has conclusively resulted in nine (9) deaths.

"About 4000 cases of thyroid cancer, mainly in children and adolescents at the time of the accident, have resulted from the accident’s contamination and at least nine children died of thyroid cancer; however the survival rate among such cancer victims, judging from experience in Belarus, has been almost 99%."

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/

Do you really want to go into how many children would have died from mercury poisoning/cancer had that same energy been generated by coal?

Didn't think so.

[OKIsItJustMe]

25. Let’s not pretend it was business as usual after the meltdown

OK?

[wtmusic]

29. Backpedal! Backpedal!

What method of power generation leaves the environment untouched (i.e., "business as usual&quot ?

Take your time.

[OKIsItJustMe]

33. I’m not backpedalling in the least

Your position is as extreme as those of some of the most rabid anti-nukes.

[wtmusic]

38. Still waiting. nt

[OKIsItJustMe]

44. What are you waiting for?

For me to say something like renewable sources have relatively little adverse ecological impact?

Apart from its obvious hazards, nuclear fission, is about the same as renewable sources in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.

http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/sustain_lca_nuclear.html

[font face=Serif][font size=5]Nuclear Power Results – Life Cycle Assessment Harmonization[/font]

[font size=3]Over the last 30 years, analysts have conducted life cycle assessments on the environmental impacts associated with a variety of nuclear power technologies and systems. These life cycle assessments have had wide-ranging results.

To better understand greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from nuclear power systems, NREL completed a comprehensive review and analysis of life cycle assessments focused on light water reactors (LWRs)—including both boiling water reactors (BWRs) and pressurized water reactors (PWRs)—published between 1980 and 2010. NREL developed and applied a systematic approach to review life cycle assessment literature, identify primary sources of variability and, where possible, reduce variability in GHG emissions estimates through a meta-analytical process called "harmonization."

Harmonization for LWR power technologies was performed by adjusting published GHG estimates to achieve:

1. Consistent values of three nuclear power system performance parameters: capacity factor, thermal efficiency, and operating lifetime,
2. A consistent system boundary, through addition or subtraction of major life cycle stage, and
3. Consistent global warming potentials (GWP) (based on IPCC 2007).

The figure below compares the published and harmonized life cycle GHG emissions for BWR and PWR power systems.

Collectively, life cycle assessment literature shows that nuclear power is similar to other renewable and much lower than fossil fuel in total life cycle GHG emissions. In addition, the harmonization process increased the precision of life cycle GHG estimates in the literature while having little impact on the overall central tendency.[/font]

Published and harmonized life cycle GHG emission distribution plots. Whiskers represent minimums and maximums. Boxes represent 25th percentile, median estimate, and 75th percentile.

…[/font]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00472.x

[wtmusic]

46. Nuclear is cleaner than renewables

when fossil backup generation is included (ignored in this study).

[OKIsItJustMe]

51. And, if battery backup, or hydrogen backup were used?

Would it be cleaner then too?

[wtmusic]

54. Honestly I don't know.

It's never been practically demonstrated on a large scale so whether it's even a practical solution is doubtful.

[BlueToTheBone]

27. Do you own stock?

You are so attached to your position, you must have money on it.

[wtmusic]

31. When antinukes don't have an argument, they resort to mindless hacks.

Have a nice day.

[BlueToTheBone]

37. One last question.

Do you live next to a nuclear facility?

[OKIsItJustMe]

28. World Nuclear Association: Health Impacts — Chernobyl Accident Appendix 2

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Safety-and-Security/Safety-of-Plants/Appendices/Chernobyl-Accident---Appendix-2--Health-Impacts/

[font face=Serif][font size=5]Health Impacts[/font]
[font size=4]Chernobyl Accident Appendix 2[/font]
[font size=3]…

Regarding the emergency workers with doses lower than those causing ARS symptoms, the Expert Group report referred to studies carried out on 61,000 emergency Russian workers where a total of 4995 deaths from this group were recorded during 1991-1998. "The number of deaths in Russian emergency workers attributable to radiation caused by solid neoplasms and circulatory system diseases can be estimated to be about 116 and 100 cases respectively." Furthermore, "the number of leukaemia cases attributable to radiation in this cohort can be estimated to be about 30." Thus, 4.6% of the number of deaths in this group are attributable to radiation-induced diseases. (The estimated average external dose for this group was 107 mSv.) From this study, it could be possible to arrive at an estimate of the mortality rate attributable to Chernobyl radiation for the rest of the Russian emergency workers (192,000 persons), as well as for the Belarusian and Ukrainian emergency workers (74,000 and 291,000 persons, respectively). Such estimates, however, have not yet been made and would depend on several assumptions, including that the age, gender and dose distributions are similar in these groups.

The picture is even more unclear for the populations of the areas affected by the Chernobyl fallout. However, the report does link the accident to an increase in thyroid cancer in children: "During 1992-2000, in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine, about 4000 cases of thyroid cancer were diagnosed in children and adolescents (0–18 years), of which about 3000 occurred in the age group of 0–14 years. For 1152 thyroid cancer patient cases diagnosed among Chernobyl children in Belarus during 1986-2002, the survival rate is 98.8%. Eight patients died due to progression of their thyroid cancer and six children died from other causes. One patient with thyroid cancer died in Russia." It is from this that several reports give a figure of around nine thyroid cancer deaths resulting from the accident. It should also be noted that other statistics quoted in the Expert Group report give the total number of thyroid cancer cases among those exposed under the age of 18 as over 4800, though this does not affect the general point that "a large proportion of the thyroid cancer fatalities can be attributed to radiation."

Regarding other effects, the Expert Group report states: "There is little peer-reviewed scientific evidence showing an increase above the spontaneous levels from cancer, leukaemia, or non-cancer mortality in populations of the areas affected by the Chernobyl fallout." It does point out a study that reports an annual death rate of 18.5 per 1000 persons for the population living in Ukrainian areas contaminated with radionuclides, compared with 16.5 per 1000 for the 50 million population of Ukraine. "The reason for the difference is not clear, and without specific knowledge of the age and sex distributions of the two populations, no conclusion can be drawn."

Current risk models are derived from studies of atomic bomb survivors, without adjustments for the protracted dose rates or allowances for differing background cancer incidence rates and demographics in the Chernobyl exposed populations. Based on these models, "a radiation related increase of total cancer morbidity and mortality above the spontaneous level by about 1-1.5% for the whole district and by about 4-6% in its most contaminated villages" can be estimated. The report continues: "The predicted lifetime excess cancer and leukaemia deaths for 200,000 liquidators, 135,000 evacuees from the 30 km zone, 270,000 residents of the SCZs ['strict control zones'] were 2200 for liquidators, 160 for evacuees, and 1600 among residents of the SCZs. This total, about 4000 deaths projected over the lifetimes of the some 600,000 persons most affected by the accident, is a small proportion of the total cancer deaths from all causes that can be expected to occur in this population. It must be stressed that this estimate is bounded by large uncertainties."

…[/font][/font]

[wtmusic]

36. Hilarious...you might want to "read" before you "cut and paste".

"There is little peer-reviewed scientific evidence showing an increase above the spontaneous levels from cancer, leukaemia, or non-cancer mortality in populations of the areas affected by the Chernobyl fallout."

kristopher, 'zat you?

[OKIsItJustMe]

48. And there it is! Your tell! The smiley!

That means you know you have an indefensible position. So, rather than address the point at hand, you decide to mock your opponent.

I notice you completely ignored the first paragraph I quoted.

…

Regarding the emergency workers with doses lower than those causing ARS symptoms, the Expert Group report referred to studies carried out on 61,000 emergency Russian workers where a total of 4995 deaths from this group were recorded during 1991-1998. "The number of deaths in Russian emergency workers attributable to radiation caused by solid neoplasms and circulatory system diseases can be estimated to be about 116 and 100 cases respectively." Furthermore, "the number of leukaemia cases attributable to radiation in this cohort can be estimated to be about 30." Thus, 4.6% of the number of deaths in this group are attributable to radiation-induced diseases. (The estimated average external dose for this group was 107 mSv.) From this study, it could be possible to arrive at an estimate of the mortality rate attributable to Chernobyl radiation for the rest of the Russian emergency workers (192,000 persons), as well as for the Belarusian and Ukrainian emergency workers (74,000 and 291,000 persons, respectively). Such estimates, however, have not yet been made and would depend on several assumptions, including that the age, gender and dose distributions are similar in these groups.

…

So, even the World Nuclear Association admits at least 216 246 deaths of Russian emergency workers beyond those who had symptoms of ARS. However, that was among a group of 61,000 workers who were tracked. (There were an additional 192,000 Russians, 74,000 Belarusians and 291,000 Ukranians who weren’t tracked. How many of them died as a result of radiation exposure?)

The WNA points out that while this study could be used to estimate other deaths, that analysis has not been done. However, (unlike you) the WNA does not suggest undocumented deaths did not occur.

[wtmusic]

50. How many people have died from wind turbines falling over?

Can you prove those deaths did not occur? Or not not not occur? Why does the wind industry want to sweep that under the rug?

Am I speaking "OK" now? Just for you...

[OKIsItJustMe]

52. You like to pretend that nuclear power is absolutely safe

Even the industry mouthpiece doesn’t do that.

When you know rational argument won’t support your position, try ad hominem.

[wtmusic]

53. Really? Show me where I make that claim. nt

[OKIsItJustMe]

55. It’s all about your attitude

…

After Chernobyl Unit #4 blew up, Units #1, #2, and #3 continued to provide power to the community for almost a decade. People went to work everyday right next to the largest nuclear accident in history. Funny how Americans' imaginations gets carried away.

…

You make it sound like everything went on as usual. “Ho hum… remember plant #4?” (Stupid Americans!)


The Soviets (and then the Ukranian government) kept the remaining reactors operating, for a simple reason, not because it was safe, but because they needed the generating capacity.

http://tech.mit.edu/V113/N51/chernobyl.51w.html

[font face=Serif]Friday, October 22, 1993

[font size=5]Chernobyl Reactor to Keep Operating[/font]

By Mary Mycio
Special to the Los Angeles Times

KIEV, Ukraine

[font size=3] Ukraine's Parliament, more worried about energy shortages than environmental safety, voted Thursday to keep the infamous Chernobyl nuclear power plant working and to resume the country's stalled atomic energy program.

The Soviet-built Chernobyl plant, which spewed radiation across Europe after a 1986 explosion and fire, was to have shut down by the end of this year. That decision, made by the same Parliament two years ago after Ukraine quit the Soviet Union, was based on voluminous evidence that Chernobyl's RBMK-type graphite reactors were unsafe.

Energy Minister Vilen Semeniuk pushed for the reversal, telling lawmakers that Ukraine is crippled by fuel shortages and by the rising cost of imported oil from Russia. He said the Chernobyl station, 80 miles north of here, should keep working "because it can supply the entire Kiev region with energy for the winter."

Ecologists in Ukraine and abroad condemned the proposal, and Ukraine's government was divided on the issue. Environmental Minister Yuri Kostenko argued that Chernobyl's shutdown should be not be delayed beyond next spring.

…[/font][/font]

[wtmusic]

56. If they had depended on solar panels covered with snow to keep them warm

I wonder how many Ukrainians would have died that winter...

Whaddya think?

[OKIsItJustMe]

57. Non sequitur - I thought the topic was the safety of nuclear fission plants

However, could the Ukranians use renewable energy sources? I mean, it snows there. Right?

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2013.02.014

[font face=Serif][font size=5]The effects of snowfall on solar photovoltaic performance[/font]
[font size=4]Abstract[/font]
[font size=3]Solar photovoltaic (PV) systems are frequently installed in climates with significant snowfall. To better understand the effects of snowfall on the performance of PV systems, a multi-angle, multi-technology PV system was commissioned and monitored over two winters. A novel methodology was introduced and validated with this system, which allows for the determination of snowfall losses from time-series performance data with correlated meteorological observations down to a 5-min resolution. In addition, a new method for determining the probability distribution of snow deposition on a module from image data was developed. It was found that the losses due to snowfall are dependent on the angle and technology being considered and the effects of increased albedo in the surroundings of a PV system can increase expected yields, particularly in the case of high tilt angle systems. Existing methods for predicting losses due to snowfall were investigated, and were found to provide overly conservative estimates of snow losses. Overall the results show that the proper assessment of snow related losses can help improve system performance and maintenance. It is concluded that proper characterization of the snowfall effect on PV system performance can influence better systems optimization for climates experiencing snowfall.

…

[font size=4]7. Conclusions[/font]

This study introduced a methodology that can be used to derive snowfall losses and time to clear of snow from a time series of module performance data, a metric commonly collected at PV installation sites. In addition, a methodology to analyse snow shedding patterns from image data was introduced, and showed the variability of snow distribution patterns depending on module type and orientation. Overall it was seen that snowfall will tend to settle in a vertical gradient on the surface of the module.

It was found that the losses due to snowfall are dependent on the angle and technology being considered. Over the 2 years studied, which had low levels of snowfall when compared to historic data, the losses ranged from 3.5–1% of expected yearly yield for sites in south-eastern Ontario. It was also found that the effect of increased spectrally responsive albedo can cause an increase of approximately 1% over projected yields on modules with higher inclinations from the horizontal. An attempt was made to correlate the time required to shed snow to module temperature and relative humidity, and though some weak trends are apparent: that a lower temperature and higher relative humidity will tend to increase the time to shed, they were not significant. Overall it was found that the proper assessment of snow related losses can help improve system performance and maintenance. In addition, proper characterization of the snowfall effect can influence better systems optimization for climates experiencing snowfall. Future work is also needed to investigate system design to better utilize albedo augmentation techniques.

…[/font][/font]

[wtmusic]

58. And we should consider the design of Chernobyl as representative?

Sure, if this represents solar

[OKIsItJustMe]

59. I suppose we should consider Chernobyl irrelevant…

[wtmusic]

60. For all practical purposes, it is.

That reactor doesn't exist anymore. Anywhere.

[OKIsItJustMe]

61. So, let me see if I follow your argument

Chernobyl wasn’t a problem, because it continued operating (mostly) as usual:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112748027#post2

Thousands of cases of childhood thyroid cancer from Chernobyl don’t matter, because there were only 9 documented deaths:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112748027#post24

Hundreds of documented deaths of emergency workers don’t matter, because… well… just because… um… there may be undocumented wind turbine deaths:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112748027#post50

Chernobyl is irrelevant because it has been shut down.

And there are no more RBMK plants in use. (Right?)
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS-Leningrad_1_decision_before_year_end-1103137.html


And there have been no other nuclear accidents since then. (Right?)

[wtmusic]

63. You and your straw men: please talk amongst yourselves. I'm bored.

[OKIsItJustMe]

64. I don’t need any straw men to keep me company

(You created about half a dozen.)

[kristopher]

65. A couple of extra pair of underwear...

...for the next few days might help with the pain when you have to sit for any length of time.

A spanking like that is going to hurt for quite a while.

[Lugal Zaggesi]

3. People in Fukushima Prefecture, Japan

are anxiously awaiting the departure of "cheap, low cost" nuclear.

[PamW]

10. Sorry - but you are being a sucker for anti-nukes that know Photoshop...

Just as with Chernobyl, the anti-nukes have been dispensing unscientific propaganda for extremely gullible people to lap up. Instead of looking to the photo-shopped pictures from the anti-nukes; why not see what legitimate scientists are saying.

When Congress wanted to know what effects could be expected from Fukushima, they sent for Dr. John Boice, a world renown expert in radiation exposure, professor of medicine, and former President of the Health Physics Society to testify. Here is his sworn testimony to Congress courtesy of the Health Physics Society:

http://www.hps.org/documents/John_Boice_Testimony_13_May_2011.pdf?

Fukushima is not Chernobyl

The health consequences of Japanese workers and public appear to be minor

The health consequences for United States citizens are negligible to nonexistent.

University of California-Berkeley Physics Professor Richard Muller, the author of the acclaimed book, "Physics for Future Presidents", had this to say in an opinion piece:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444772404577589270444059332.html

Professor Muller points out that, except for the immediate vicinity of the Fukushima plant, the majority of the area that has been cordoned off by Japanese authorities have radiation levels that are one-third the radiation levels of the Denver area due to the natural radioactivity in the granite upon which Denver sits.

Is it logical or intelligent to get "all bent out of shape" about the area around Fukushima when it isn't even as bad, by a factor of 3; as the area in and around Denver, which people have no concern about.

Just as I said in another post, Chernobyl is like the Hidenburg. The flaws that caused the Chernobyl accident were unique to Chernobyl and the RBMK reactor, and not at all characteristic of other nuclear plants.

The same can be said about Fukushima. Although the Fukushima plants are based on the GE Boiling Water Reactor design; the Japanese licensed the design, but didn't follow the GE design to the letter. ( GE provided only the reactor for Unit 6 ) Because the Japanese didn't follow the GE design to the letter; Fukushima would not have been eligible for a license in the USA.

It's analogous to what happened several years ago with a Japanese Air Lines (JAL) Boeing 747. The JAL 747 underwent a repair to a part of the tail; but that repair was NOT done to the specification of Boeing engineers. The repair resulted in a weak tail, which broke and resulted in the crash of the JAL 747.

Because the JAL 747 was not repaired to the specs of Boeing engineers, is that a reason to fear to fly on Boeing 747s owned by US carriers? We have an FAA that is much better in ensuring that repairs are made properly than the FAA's Japanese counterpart. Likewise, the NRC is much better than its Japanese counterpart. The Fukushima plant violated many, many NRC regulations.

PamW

[PamW]

9. Chernobyl is the Hindenburg of the nuclear power industry

Chernobyl is the Hindenburg of the nuclear power industry.

The Hindenburg exploded during docking and crashed to Earth killing many of its occupants.

However, did we say, "Oh well, kill off commercial aviation". Of course not. We realized the dangers of using a hydrogen-filled airship to carry passengers. The Hindenburg was originally intended to be levitated by Helium, but the US stopped exporting Helium to Nazi Germany, so they used Hydrogen.

Are you afraid of flying in a Boeing 777 because of what happened to the Hindenburg?

Most of the people on this forum have only the most basic education in science and technology, and that is especially true when it comes to nuclear technology. With minimal nuclear education, many don't realize that there are many types of reactors with differing characteristics. To most here, "a reactor is a reactor is a reactor"; they are all the same.

Is that true for aircraft? Most here know that a Boeing 777 is nothing like the Hindenburg, and nobody is talking about building any more hydrogen-levitated Hindenburgs to serve the commercial aviation industry.

Just as the Hindenburg is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT when it comes to talking about the future of commercial aviation dominated by Boeing 777s and Boeing 787s and the like; the same comparison is true with respect to Chernobyl and future nuclear power.

Chernobyl was a "Generation 0" reactor. It wasn't even as advanced as the Generation 1 reactors the USA retired decades ago which preceded the Generation 2 reactors in service now. Future reactors will be Gen 4+.

So saying that nuclear power should be avoided because of Chernobyl is akin to saying that future commercial air travel on Boeing 777s and Boeing 787s and the future aircraft from Boeing and Airbus should be abandoned because a hydrogen-levitated airship called the Hindenburg caught fire and crashed decades ago.

Doesn't make ANY logical sense whatsoever.

PamW

[madokie]

11. Whats illogical in all this

is your comparison of the Hindenburg with a nuclear power plant.

[kristopher]

5. Nuclear the cheapest option? Only if you lie.

The strike price of nuclear is no good unless it is guaranteed for at least 40 years. Future nuclear plants will almost certainly require HIGHER prices since the cost curve for nuclear is ever higher.

They aren't willing to guarantee the price for renewable any longer than 4 years.
Why?
Because the price of electricity from renewable sources is steadily declining and writing todays prices into stone (as they are doing with nuclear) would be foolhardy and a gross misuse of public funds.


Let me know when they either make an agreement to steadily lower the price of nuclear at the same pace they do renewables, or, when they agree to hold today's offered price for renewables for a period of 40 years.

[FBaggins]

12. Just wondering... Did you actually believe any of that?

You're trying to leave the reader with the impression that a wind plant built today will get lower and lower strike prices over the next few years (you flat out claim that it's a guarantee for no more than 4 years. Which, of course, is nonsense. The contract lengths in each case are entirely appropriate for the expected service lives of the assets involved - providing a long enough guarantee for the developer to recoup its capital expense.

The non-nuclear strike price guarantees are not for four years... they're for 15-20 - depending on how long they are expected to last. It would make no sense to provide a 40-year commitment to an offshore wind farm with turbines that are warranted for half of that period. Conversely, a 40-year commitment for an asset with a service life of 60-80 years is entirely appropriate.

And for the record, the UK does expect nuclear costs to decline in the future. Roughly maintaining the price advantage over offshore wind in 2030.

There's no need to spot lies to judge the relative costs. All we need to do is sit back and watch. The strike prices are mostly set (with nuclear expected shortly). How much of each will be built at the given prices? If they commit to develop almost no offshore wind (at 155) and lots of large-scale solar (at 125)... then we will know that the wind at that higher price is still less attractive. And thus the "real" price of solar is above 125 (or the real price of wind is comparatively lower - or both).

[kristopher]

14. Sorry but that doesn't work.

Last edited Sun Jun 30, 2013, 07:41 PM - Edit history (1)

You are locking in the capacity of the nuclear plant, you are not locking in any set amount of capacity with wind.

That means that the nuclear plant (which will probably not be completed for at least 10 years going by EDF's demonstrated recent record) will be entering a market where the demonstrated declining costs of renewables is significantly lower than that being offered today.

Using the proven empty promises of the nuclear construction industry as a basis for comparison against proven delivered performance of the renewables sector is convincing only to nuclear acolytes and the completely uninformed.

Would you like a list of papers detailing the 50 year pattern of failure to perform by the nuclear industry?

As for which gets built being a measure of relative costs, that is pure bullshit. There is a competition for market share going on. The nuclear plant(s) are going to crowd out the lower priced renewables so they WILL NOT get built. That is precisely why the Conservatives are structuring the subsidies for nuclear as they are. Their move will also ensure, for the same reasons, that energy efficiency measures will also be allowed to languish.

ETA: Your desire to promote the OP isn't shared, so I won't be kicking this thread again. What I wrote in my first post is correct, and the clarifications in this one are also correct. Your choice to misconstrue what is written is overt and so sloppily done that I'd probably feel pity for you if your intent wasn't so repugnant.

You've come to remind me of the attempts by Zimmerman's 'knock knock' lawyer to try and discredit the testimony of the young lady on the phone with Treyvon Martin while he was being stalked by Zimmerman.

[FBaggins]

15. Nice attempt at deflection

Let's just ignore the fact that your last post was entirely incorrect... and just move on to new errors, eh? We'll just pretend that the 4-year-guarantee claim was never made.

You are locking in the capacity of the nuclear plant, you are not locking in any set amount of capacity with wind.

Don't you think you ought to read up on these things before making such claims? Don't you think it would be a little less embarrassing? The CFD do "lock in" project capacity. Of course, with variable renewables, there's no guarantee what proportion of that maximum capacity will be generated, but they can't increase the nameplate capacity under the same CFD.

So yes... they're pretty close to "locking in" the amount of electricity they'll buy from the nuclear plant... while it's a shot in the dark how much the wind plant will actually produce. But it's beyond me why you think that's a good thing for wind.

That means that the nuclear plant (which will probably not be completed for at least 10 years going by EDF's demonstrated recent record) will be entering a market where the demonstrated declining costs of renewables is significantly lower than that being offered today.

And the wind plant (which will also take years to build) will also be entering a market where current prices are lower... but they'll still get the 15 year CFD at the price they locked in at (assuming they can complete the project on time). The key you're missing is that the nuclear plant will enter a market where the price of offshore wind (particularly when adjusted for the value of that power) is still higher than the price of then-new nuclear (and almost certainly higher than the price of that now-completed nuclear plant)

As for which gets built being a measure of relative costs, that is pure bullshit. There is a competition for market share going on. The nuclear plant(s) are going to crowd out the lower priced renewables so they WILL NOT get built.

Lol... so what you're saying is that the combination of the nuclear plants being cheaper and lasting longer means that when renewables eventually do get cheaper... they still won't get built because the nuclear plants will have eaten up all of the market?

"Pure bullshit" indeed. The UK is looking to decarbonize their electricity generation in the next couple decades. There's lots of room for renewables growth even in the most aggressive pro-nuclear scenario.

Let me simplify it for you. If an investor thinks she can be more profitable building an offshore wind plant at $155 than a nuclear plant at ~$95... then that's what she's going to invest in (and visa-versa). There's enough capital to go around (since the various time periods of locked up capital must be considered as well)... but they'll either all come in above/below growth expectations (indicating an incentive price that's too high/low respectively), or some will be relatively more successful at those prices. You can't spin from that by treating your expectations for the future as certanties. The "four times" analysis compared long-term costs of recently built/ under construction plants. Claiming "well... then-new solar will only be 50% more expensive 20 years from now" is beside the point.

Would you like a list of papers detailing the 50 year pattern of failure to perform by the nuclear industry?

Got any that don't boil down to the childishly oversimplified assumption that since it has "nuclear" in the name... it's exactly like decades-old nuclear plants? Any that explain the comparison in price between the fire two plants of this design and the price they're bidding for these two units (and/or the ones in China) without just claiming "they're lying... it will really cost more than Flamville because that's the 'negative learning curve' of nuclear power"?

No? Then let's not waste time with more spam.

[DLnyc]

16. It is manifestly obvious that wind is cheaper than nuclear.

A wind-mill is just a big stand, some blades, and a generator to convert motion to electricity.

The nuclear plant needs the same: a turbine and a generator plus a structure to hold them plus:
o a massive containment vessel
o ultra-high pressure steam pipes made of material that won't degrade on exposure to radiation
o highly complex safety mechanisms to rapidly pull rods out in case of emergency
o a large team of highly trained technicians to operate
o a complex network of industries to mine, refine, machine and handle the fuel
o a security structure to safeguard the plant from terrorist attack
o large containment pools for the spent fuel, and a team of trained technicians to monitor and maintain them
o some mechanism (still waiting for this one) to store the cooled-down spent fuel for thousands of years
o expensive government-subsidized insurance to indemnify contractors to get them to build and maintain the thing

not to mention the hidden "external" costs of occasional disasters and, perhaps most important, an army of shills to try to convince people that a manifestly expensive, dangerous technology is cheaper than a simple, safe one.

In fact, wind is going up for about $1 per watt capacity and new nuclear looks like at least $3 to $4 per watt capacity, even before the external costs of federal insurance guarantees, waste management and cost of disasters is figured in. Even with the intermittent factor of wind (and ignoring the maintenance and life-time problems with nuclear), wind is really much cheaper. As evidenced by the fact that wind is going up like hotcakes and almost no one is building nuclear.

You are just wrong and I believe you must know it.

[wtmusic]

17. You need to do some homework.

• The nuclear plant that you describe generates about three thousand times more power than one wind turbine.
• Wind's capacity factor is about 30% - meaning it generates power about 1/3 of the time. Nuclear's is about 80%, and much of that can be planned ahead of time.
• While not cheaper than onshore wind, nuclear is 60% cheaper than offshore wind.
• Wind requires natural gas backup plants, so it is not by any stretch of the imagination "carbon-free".
• Wind is "going up like hotcakes" because of exhorbitant subsidies (when the subsidies are withdrawn, the wind market's bottom falls out).

Those are the main ones, most of the rest is wrong but I don't have the patience. Here are the real costs for energy generation:

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm

[DLnyc]

18. Well thank you for this information reinforcing my point.

*->• The nuclear plant that you describe generates about three thousand times more power than one wind turbine.

the capital costs of wind PER WATT CAPACITY is much lower than nuclear. That means that 2000 500kW wind turbines go in for less that one 1000 MW nuclear plant. It turns out that 2000 relatively simple 500kW wind turbines go in for CONSIDERABLY LESS (from 4 to 10 times less, actually) than one 1000MW nuclear reactor. This is not surprising if you consider the technology involved. Also, quite obviously I think, it takes a LOT LESS to maintain 2000 500kW wind turbines that to maintain one 1000Mw nuclear reactor. Even ignoring external costs.


*->• Wind's capacity factor is about 30% - meaning it generates power about 1/3 of the time. Nuclear's is about 80%, and much of that can be planned ahead of time.

Good point! Wind is going in at $1 per watt capacity, so including time of generation, we get about $3.30 per watt. A 1000 MW nuclear plant is going in anywhere from $4 billion to $14 billion, or $4 to $14 per watt (or bit more, accepting only 80% down time):
"
The reported prices at six new pressurized water reactors are indicative of costs for that type of plant:[24]
February 2008—For two new AP1000 reactors at its Turkey Point site, Florida Power & Light calculated overnight capital cost from $2444 to $3582 per kW, which were grossed up to include cooling towers, site works, land costs, transmission costs and risk management for total costs of $3108 to $4540 per kilowatt. Adding in finance charges increased the overall figures to $5780 to $8071 per kW ($6.6 and $9.3 billion, respectively).
March 2008—For two new AP1000 reactors in Florida, Progress Energy announced that if built within 18 months of each other, the cost for the first would be $5144 per kilowatt and the second $3376/kW - total $9.4 billion. Including land, plant components, cooling towers, financing costs, license application, regulatory fees, initial fuel for two units, owner's costs, insurance, taxes, escalation, and contingencies, the total would be about $14 billion.
May 2008—For two new AP1000 reactors at the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Generating Station in South Carolina, South Carolina Electric and Gas Co. and Santee Cooper expected to pay $9.8 billion (which includes forecast inflation and owners' costs for site preparation, contingencies, and project financing).
November 2008—For two new AP1000 reactors at its Lee site, Duke Energy Carolinas raised the cost estimate to $11 billion, excluding finance and inflation, but apparently including other owners costs.
November 2008—For two new AP1000 reactors at its Bellefonte site, TVA updated its estimates for overnight capital cost estimates ranged to $2516 to $4649/kW for a combined construction cost of $5.6 to 10.4 billion (total costs of $9.9 to $17.5 billion).
April 2008 -- Georgia Power Company reached a contract agreement for two AP1000 reactors to be built at Vogtle,[25] at an estimated final cost of $14 billion plus $3 billion for necessary transmission upgrades.[26]
"
(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_nuclear_power_plants )

Figuring AP1000 at approximately 1000 MW, it's clear that capital costs are like $4 to over $14 per watt, well over $3.30 you get for wind.

And note that these prices IGNORE INSURANCE AND SIGNIFICANCE EXTERNAL COSTS LIKE WASTE DISPOSAL, SECURITY AND OCCASIONAL DISASTERS. Just as I said.

*->• While not cheaper than onshore wind, nuclear is 60% cheaper than offshore wind.

Okay, thanks, looks like we AGREE. : "While not cheaper than onshore wind, nuclear . . . ". Yes, okay, we agree, nuclear is NOT cheaper than (onshore) wind (that is, the normal, widely installed wind that one would normally be discussing). But if we suddenly switch the discussion to a controversial, largely untested technology, well, who knows? Basically, that is kind of a strawman argument. "Wind" is "onshore wind". Offshore wind is another, not really significant, subject, I would say.

*->• Wind requires natural gas backup plants, so it is not by any stretch of the imagination "carbon-free".

Yes, actually, wind is carbon-free. Each watt generated by wind is generated carbon-free. Wind is going in on top of an existing fossil infrastructure, so each wind watt replaces, does not "require" but REPLACES, a carbon watt. Saying that a wind watt is creating CO2 is quite a bit of a stretch, I am afraid. Sorry.

*->• Wind is "going up like hotcakes" because of exhorbitant subsidies (when the subsidies are withdrawn, the wind market's bottom falls out).

Yes, good point. When $50,000,000,000 of nuclear subsidies (Obama's state of the Union figure, $50 billion) are withdrawn, the nuclear bottom falls out. Wind is going up like hotcakes, as you seem to tacitly admit here, IN SPITE OF wind incentives (or "subsidies" to you, I guess) being much weaker and less dependable than those for nuclear.

*->Those are the main ones, most of the rest is wrong but I don't have the patience. Here are the real costs for energy generation:

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm

Oh, thank you! For the grand finale, you exactly document my point:

Advanced Nuclear 90 83.4 11.6 12.3 1.1 108.4
Geothermal 92 76.2 12.0 0.0 1.4 89.6
Biomass 83 53.2 14.3 42.3 1.2 111.0
Non-Dispatchable Technologies
Wind 34 70.3 13.1 0.0 3.2 86.6

So we get (according to the article YOU CITE):

Nuclear: 108.4
Wind 86.6

Wind is significantly CHEAPER, even leaving out (as the article you cite does) massive government insurance to indemnify contractors and other very significant, publicly borne, external costs like waste disposal, a large security structure and the price of planning for, and actual, disasters.

With all due respect my friend, no matter how hard you work to spin it, it's obvious, and in fact true, that wind is cheaper. For both of them, the fuel source can be treated as about zero (more so for wind than for nuclear, actually). But the technical and social costs are just massively, and obviously, much much larger for nuclear.

As I said before, you are wrong and it is hard for me not to imagine that perhaps you would know that unless your livelihood somehow depended upon your not knowing that.

And, finally, as far as your phrase "but I don't have the patience", I SOOOO know how you feel!

Peace,
-dlnyc

[wtmusic]

19. Please. $50 billion in "nuclear subsidies" is either just bullshit

or you don't know the difference between a subsidy and a loan guarantee. Like I said, you have some homework.

The EIA has done an excellent job taking into account all of the externalities and including the incidentals like insurance, waste dispoal, and security. That's what "levelized" means. So while something is "quite obvious" to you, it looks "quite silly" to someone else, especially when you childishly use capitals to try to make a point.

Here is all you need:

Onshore Wind 86.6
Nuclear 108.4
Offshore wind 221.5

Onshore wind is cheaper, when it works. Offshore wind costs twice as much.

Wind requires natural gas; pretending it doesn't is denial. The variable output of wind would destroy a transmission infrastructure without the load balancing that natural gas provides. That means as long as there is wind (and there is not significant storage), the two go hand in hand. It is not a "standalone" solution, and won't be for the forseeable future.

Wind energy generates carbon. Nuclear is carbon-free.
Wind has not a chance of providing enough energy to keep global temperature rise below 2C before 2050. Nuclear does.
Wind requires 169 square miles of land use to accomplish what nuclear can accomplish in 1.7 square miles.
Wind only works in some areas; in others it requires hundreds of miles of unsightly transmission lines which are being fought by landowners.

Wind can make a significant contribution in some areas, in others it's useless. It's completely inadequate at powering a 21st century global energy market and serves mostly as a decoy for the natural gas industry to advance their interests. Thanks for playing into their hands.

[madokie]

20. Back of napkin, early morning half assed asleep figures

The Chernobyl exclusion zone would encompass roughly 950 square miles. Thats a lot of wasted land mass in anyones book.
Maybe my math is off? If not then who wants to take a chance on that
30 k radius, 18 mi

Fukushima exclusion zone would encompass roughly 250 square miles. Pretty good size chunk of land for an island that is badly in need of more land, wouldn't you say.
Again maybe my math is off, if so someone correct it for me please.
15 k radius, 9 mi

Damn I hope I'm way off with these figures

[DLnyc]

21. A = pi r^2. You are basically correct.

Area of a circle is pi times radius squared, where pi = 3.14159...
1 kilometer = 0.621371 miles

30 k = 30 X 0.62 miles = 18.6 miles, roughly
pi times 18.6^2 = 1087 square miles, roughly

15 k = 15 X 0.62 miles = 9.3 miles, roughly
pi times 9.3^2 = 272 square miles, roughly

you are a bit under in both cases, looks like.

[FBaggins]

22. And if more than half of the circle isn't over land?

The difference between the two is that the contamination in most of the Chernobyl areas was well over the defined threshold, so evan as half-lives reduce those levels... the geographic area is still large.

In Japan, large portions of the exclusion area were only nominally above those levels. So the exclusion zone has been shrinking pretty rapidly.

[Auggie]

30. Does that include the cost of transporting/storing spent rods?

And potential soil contamination for tens of thousands of years?

[wtmusic]

32. Soil contamination?!

Do you think they bury this stuff out back?

Of course those costs are covered. Do you think contractors provide those services for free?

[Auggie]

34. Potential ...

can you guarantee safe storage for 10,000 years?

[wtmusic]

35. Can you guarantee the human race won't be extinct in 500 years?

By any calculation, it won't if we depend on renewables to save us from coal.

[on point]

39. Nuclear never cheaper once total life cycle including waste & decommission included

Nuclear only wants to talk about costs once plant is running and never includes the before and after costs in either their carbon calculations or the total cost calculations. Nuclear is NOT the better option. Not to mention cost of disaster cleanup which should be a risk tax applied to all plants to self insure the industry can pay damages

[wtmusic]

40. The biggest uncertainty facing nuclear power is how many idiots Greenpeace can marshal

to parrot their thoroughly debunked talking points and abuse the regulatory process.

All of that information is included in cost assessment, but thanks for your input.

[Mopar151]

41. Really?

The "trouble" with nuclear is that the downside risk is large, and much of it has been deferred - or the promised mitigation (like fuel reprocessing and long-term, safe waste disposal) has either failed, or never materalized. And, like it or not, the commercial nuclear industry "owns the karma" for the godawful enviromental disasters at Rocky Flats, INEL, and the Hanford Reservation, to name a few.

[wtmusic]

42. All the disasters you name were from weapons production,

not from the commercial power industry, and involve practices which have been abandoned for decades.

The downside risk is large in certain contexts, in others it's exceedingly small. Per unit of energy generated nuclear energy is by far the safest form of dispatchable power generation. Though Fukushima was a financial catastrophe there has not been one documented radiological casualty. Meanwhile 15,000 Americans die every year from the effects of coal pollution.

Most experts believe there is a heightened proliferation risk with reprocessing, although it's standard practice in France and there have been no known issues. Long term, safe spent-fuel storage (no one in the nuclear industry believes that it's waste or that it won't be used again) may still happen at Yucca, which was temporarily abandoned because of political reasons - namely, guaranteeing Harry Reid's support for Obama in 2008.

The people of Carlsbad NM don't share Nevadans concerns about nuclear waste storage, and are the benefiiciaries of $100 million every year for safe dismantled weapons storage at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. The plant may be expanded to become America's primary spent fuel repository.

[on point]

43. Show me the NPV for 100,000 yrs of waste protection and we can talk

Not to mention NPV cost of reclaiming Chernobyl, Fukushima and the next disaster area that is statistically likely to happen

Break out all costs over entire life, make the plant put aside the money today in rates it charges then let's talk about price comparisons

[wtmusic]

45. Ah, Greenpeace Idiotic Talking Point #1.

Spent fuel will be burned in Gen IV reactors within 100 years - and not only that, it will create valuable carbon-free energy.

Statistically an earthquake will cause a loss of coolant accident every 92,000 years in the U.S.

Again - what are the chances Homo Sapiens will survive the next 500 years while the coal industry distracts the public with shiny renewable toys?

[on point]

47. Nobody is falling for your pro nuclear propaganda. Plz move to Fukushima ok?

[wtmusic]

49. Statistically it would be safer than living in parts of West Virginia

but I wouldn't expect you to understand why. Have a nice day!

[Mopar151]

62. The Mass Yankee core is buried at Hanford

As there was no other place... Where are the other, already decomissioned reactor cores going? And those "discredited for decades practices" - how long is the hot mess from them going to require monitoring, maintainence, and removal to safer storage? And what are we going to do with the crappy old nukes that are being shut down from age? Those extensions at Vermont Yankee ain't likely to fly, as trust in the plant's operator has tanked (heavy water leaks, cooling tower collapse), and several other old dogs (San Ononfrio? ) are being scrapped as "unecomical to repair".