Exclusive analysis, Part 1: The staggering cost of new nuclear power

[Javaman]

http://climateprogress.org/2009/01/05/study-cost-risks-new-nuclear-power-plants/

A new study puts the generation costs for power from new nuclear plants at from 25 to 30 cents per kilowatt-hour — triple current U.S. electricity rates!

This staggering price is far higher than the cost of a variety of carbon-free renewable power sources available today — and ten times the cost of energy efficiency (see “Is 450 ppm possible? Part 5: Old coal’s out, can’t wait for new nukes, so what do we do NOW?“).

The new study, Business Risks and Costs of New Nuclear Power, is one of the most detailed cost analyses publically available on the current generation of nuclear power plants being considered in this country. It is by a leading expert in power plant costs, Craig A. Severance. A practicing CPA, Severance is co-author of The Economics of Nuclear and Coal Power (Praeger 1976), and former Assistant to the Chairman and to Commerce Counsel, Iowa State Commerce Commission.

This important new analysis is being published by Climate Progress because it fills a critical gap in the current debate over nuclear power — transparency. Severance explains:

All assumptions, and methods of calculation are clearly stated. The piece is a deliberate effort to demystify the entire process, so that anyone reading it (including non-technical readers) can develop a clear understanding of how total generation costs per kWh come together.

As stunning as this new, detailed cost estimate is, it should not come as a total surprise. I detailed the escalating capital costs of nuclear power in my May 2008 report, “The Self-Limiting Future of Nuclear Power.”

[kristopher]

1. Vindication

Not so long ago here there was considerable gnashing of teeth and snarling by nuclear proponents when I suggested that the actual total cost of a 1GW nuclear reactor was probably approaching $10-11 billion.


Total Estimated “All In” Capital Costs: $10,553/KW (Severance pg. 19)

[bananas]

2. The author replied to comments there

http://climateprogress.org/2009/01/05/study-cost-risks-new-nuclear-power-plants#comment-26227

<snip>

Craig Severance Says:
January 5th, 2009 at 10:17 pm

The author of the Study, Craig Severance, replies:

I am already encouraged that the Study is beginning to have the effect hoped for – that is, we are beginning to have a discussion about real facts and numbers, not bald-faced assertions. There is no need for any ideological wars – I think all of those who join this discussion are convinced we need to move to lower-carbon solutions as quickly as possible.. Also, none of us expect the population will en masse go “off the grid” and move back to the land. We will need a reliable electrical grid. With those issues out of the way, we are simply discussing what are the most cost-effective ways to achieve carbon reductions, while protecting the electric utility industry from making disastrous mistakes that could position itself for insolvency and the need for government bailout.

<big snip of several paragraphs by him>

[Laelth]

3. Bill says this in response to the quoted "study":

January 5th, 2009 at 3:07 pm

I read the study, and it appears to rely on obsolete data and studies to repeat the same tired arguments. First, it only looks at old nuclear technology, saying since no one has built a newer technology plant, how do we know what it will cost?
Absurd. Engineers and builders can tell you what it will cost, within a range, and once you start construction you can lock in a price. We do know, however, that from a design perspective, 4th generation nuclear facilities will cost substantially less, as we are no longer relying on LWR technology. We also know they won’t produce a waste issue, since they are designed to recycle their own waste, and, indeed, will solve our existing waste issue, as it would be used as fuel. Once we make the shift to thorium from uranium we won’t even face non-proliferation risks.
What we should do is declare a moratorium on existing 2 gen facilities, such as what Areva wants to build here in the US. Areva prefers old technology because they have built their business around it (both front end and back end). Instead, let’s go ahead and build new 4 gen facilities, with both Fast Reactor technology and Thorium. Let those two compete for market share.
You will then find nuclear to be far more cost competitive, and far better for the environment. And, yes, we can do it before 2020. In ten years we can have them up and running. All we need is some leadership.

I say this:

Wind Power BLOWS. :hi:

See the following:
http://www.keepersoftheblueridge.com/faqs.html
http://www.nortexwind.org/index.htm
http://www.stopillwind.org/index.php
http://windconcernsontario.wordpress.com/
http://www.savewesternny.org/
http://www.epaw.org/

Or just watch this series of videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNxvkrgoPLo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_utFV2ukOtU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOd5tSZF3A4&feature=related

There's more, but you get the idea. :)

The United States is a LIBERAL Country.

:dem:

-Laelth

[HamdenRice]

4. I note with contempt that anti-nuke fundamentalist yuppie scum...

Just kidding. So glad you could post this without the usual heckling. I guess I just had a moment of Stockholm syndrome.