How Much?

[kristopher]

How much?
20 November 2007
Nuclear Engineering International


For some utilities, the capital costs of a new nuclear power plant are prohibitive.


Just before the release of the US Energy Information Administration’s (EIA’s) Annual Energy Outlook 2005 (AEO 2005) the then senior vice president of nuclear generation and chief nuclear officer at the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), Marvin Fertel, told the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee that the assumptions made on new nuclear plant construction were erroneous. The EIA had assumed overnight capital costs of $1928/kWe, which Fertel claimed were “unrealistically high, and inflated.”

The EIA, Fertel said, “assumed that new nuclear plants would experience the same delays, lengthy construction periods and high costs experienced by some of the plants built in the 1980s and 1990s.” These assumptions were unrealistic owing to advances in construction techniques and new simplified, standardised plant designs. More realistic overnight capital cost estimates of new nuclear were of the order of $1400-1500/kWe for the first-of-a-kind and $300 less for the nth-of-a-kind, he claimed.

The EIA’s estimate, however – which has not changed significantly since AEO 2005 – was actually optimistic when compared to a 2003 report by Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), titled The Future of Nuclear Power, where the base case overnight capital cost for nuclear was $2000/kWe (in 2002 dollars).

There are many other figures available, including the June 2007 report by The Keystone Center, titled Nuclear Power Joint Fact-Finding. This study, which was funded by several nuclear plant operators as well as other interested parties including General Electric and NEI, estimates overnight costs of $2950/kWe (in 2007 dollars). With interest, this figure translates to between $3600/kWe and $4000/kWe.

Interestingly, when Nuclear Power Joint Fact-Finding was released, the nuclear industry press chose to either focus on other aspects – in particular the ‘finding’ that nuclear is a viable option for dealing with climate change – or ignore the report altogether. Considering the number of organisations involved in the nuclear industry that backed the report, this low level of coverage is anomalous, and suggests a certain amount of discomfort with the findings.

However, prohibitively high though it may at first appear to be, even the figure for new build costs in The Keystone Center report is considered too low by some observers.

Independent energy consultant...
http://www.neimagazine.com/storyprint.asp?sc=2047917



I just had to share those comments from the Nuclear Energy Institute since they mirror precisely the willingness to deal with reality we see here on DU everyday from the proponents of nuclear power. Here is a reasonably up to date graph of the way cost estimates have unfolded:

Cooper's analysis of what is behind this bizarre price estimating scheme amount to the claim that the nuclear industry is lowballing the estimates (they won't provide price guarantees under any circumstances) in an attempt to "hook" the taxpayer into sinking billions into a project before revealing that more billions, then even more billions, are going to be needed.

Cooper report summary here: http://www.olino.org/us/articles/2009/11/26/the-economics-of-nuclear-reactors-renaissance-or-relapse

[bergie321]

1. Is anyone else concerned

That they are using "simplified" designs for new Nuclear plants? Think how much money they could save by ditching the pesky containment dome and hiring some Russian contractors...

[Confusious]

2. Do some reading

and learn what "simplified" actually means, instead of just reacting.

[Statistical]

3. Some knowledge on "simplified" which is "passive safety" might be a good idea.

Passive safety systems don't require electricity or pumps to cool the reactor.

As result the core failure rate is 1/100th to 1/5000th of that of Gen II plants.

A reactor which uses natural forces (gravity, convection, evaporation, etc) will always be safer than one that requires on forced water flow (powered by electricity) in an emergency situation.

The AP1000 for example can shutdown and cool the reactor without any electrical power or input from control room.

[Statistical]

4. What you fail to understand is that KW peak doesn't generate the same amount of energy.

Nuclear reactors don't need to have some ultra low cost per KW to be competitive with other low carbon sources.

Generation is in KWh (KW hours). It is obtained by average output * 8760 (hours in a year).

So a 1 GW plant with 100% capacity factor will deliver 1 * 1.00 * 24 * 365 = 8760 GWh annually.
A 1 GW plant that has a 50% capacity factor will only deliver 1 * 0.50 * 24 * 365 = 4380 GWh annually.

SO when comparing PEAK power you need to factor in capacity factor to get the equivalent amount of energy produced.

Average solar capacity factor in the US in 17%.
Average onshore wind capacity factor in the US is 26%.
Average off shore wind capacity factor in the US is 40% (theoretical none yet built).
Average nuclear reactor capacity factor in US in 92%.

So 1 KW of nuclear power (peak output) is roughly equal to





So 1 KW PEAK from a reactor is not the same as 1 KW PEAK from a wind plant.

Onshore wind has an overnight cost of about $1500 per KW peak.
$1500 per KW peak / 0.26 = $5770 per KW average.

Offshore wind has an overnight cost of about $2500 per KW peak.
$2500 per KW peak / 0.40 = $6250 per KW average

PV Solar has an overnight cost of about $3000 per KW peak.
$3000 per KW peak / 0.15 = $20,000 per KW average

A nuclear reactor with an overnight cost of say $4500 per KW peak is actually cheaper.
$4500 per KW peak / 0.92 = $4891 per KW average

So why is wind & solar in your opinion "cheap" and nuclear expensive when they have a higher installed cost than "expensive nuclear" per KW average?

Peak power is meaningless. Peak power * capacity factor * runtime (8760 hours per year) = total energy produced per year.
Utilities sell ENERGY not PEAK POWER.

[kristopher]

6. Dishonest accountting again stats? When you add in all the other costs....

When the total costs are tallied - especially the hidden costs that the nuclear industry tries desperately to hide you get:

[Statistical]

8. Not that bogus chart again.

Pure garbage.

Nuclear reactors have been generating power for decades.

Is your power bill anywhere near $0.30 per kWh? :rofl:

Utterly stupid claim.

[kristopher]

9. Nuclear power is part of the mix, not the lone source of generation.

A few comments from pronuclear papers:

2. How can the risks specific to new nuclear build be mitigated or shifted away from the investor ?

We consider the different risks specific to nuclear build and different ways to ex ante mitigate them or to shift them away from the producer-investor onto another party. Although these risks are intrinsically related and partly overlap, we classify them in the following categories: regulatory and political risks, construction and operating risks, and finish by market risks (volume and price risks). It is noteworthy that some of these risks, in particular market risks, are not intrinsically related to nuclear power, but are magnified by its specific characters including the long construction lead time, the high capital intensity and the absence of correlation between nuclear operating costs and hourly electricity prices

And

...existing federal subsidies are likely to disproportionately benefit development of new nuclear power plants by public utilities in rate-regulated states that have other avenues available to them to mitigate the unique construction, political and regulatory risks that face new nuclear projects—i.e., by shifting those risks onto public ratepayers in the form of increases in the utilities‘ rate bases.

[Nederland]

5. Reports and Analysis are a dime a dozen

They merely reflect the biases of those creating them. Some people say that new processes and regulations will fix the problems that nuclear had with cost overruns, others (like you) say that we will soon see history repeat itself. Who is right? I'm not sure. I think I'll wait till we actually build a few of these things and then see what they really cost.

[kristopher]

7. That is a view the nuclear industry heartily endorses.

But actually it isn't true. Reports and analysis are not "a dime a dozen". They take a great deal of time and effort to accomplish. What is a dime a dozen are the comments of those trying to bamboozle the public into buying a pig we can't afford.

[Nederland]

10. My mistake

I'm sure they do cost a fair amount of money to produce--which makes it all the more unfortunate that they simply serve to justify the positions of their funders.