Saudis want aid if world cuts oil dependence

The technology has to be developed more of course (and it will) to get cheaper. As I said: Desert regions, such as the Sahara or the Arabian peninsula would be able to pull huge amounts of energy from such plants.

It is currently only an idea in the heads of people but I am sure that once this technology is widely spread and more developed, it will be awesomely cheap in comparison with any other traditional method to make water boil.

If somebody is looking for long term investments, this is a hint.

I love these little snide remarks. Find that on the wikipedia? Mr. "I want reliable, independent, renown sources."

I like you, too :love:

:p
 
Last edited:
Edit: But they don't come at a cost of $13-$18 BILLION each for new nuclear power plants with a cost to consumers of between $5000 and $6000/kWe.

That's just a question of lifetime. Run them for 40 years and your $15 billion for a 3GWe plant will turn out to under $0.015/kWh (assuming constant full load).


The whole solar complex with those towers is estimated to cost ?1.2 billion and will be capable of 300MW - ?4000/kWe or about $5900/kWe... and those 300MW won't even in theory be able to run 24/365.




PS: I love those solar plants, just wanted to state facts :rolleyes:
 
That's just a question of lifetime. Run them for 40 years and your $15 billion for a 3GWe plant will turn out to under $0.015/kWh (assuming constant full load).


The whole solar complex with those towers is estimated to cost ?1.2 billion and will be capable of 300MW - ?4000/kWe or about $5900/kWe... and those 300MW won't even in theory be able to run 24/365.




PS: I love those solar plants, just wanted to state facts :rolleyes:
Part of the problem is that governments will not actually publish the true costs due to National Security concerns - now that tells you so many things. ... Also they probably do not know - we have yet to find a place to dump our radioactive rubbish - we leave them on the generating sites - can not do that for ever now can we? I say build the next powerstation next door to the next idiot's house, forcing them to live there forever, who tells everyone that "They are perfectly safe". Then I will believe him.
 
Last edited:
***Wrong forum***

This should be in the jokes thread ;)
 
Part of the problem is that governments will not actually publish the true costs due to National Security concerns - now that tells you so many things. ... Also they probably do not know - we have yet to find a place to dump our radioactive rubbish - we leave them on the generating sites - can not do that for ever now can we? I say build the next powerstation next door to the next idiot's house, forcing them to live there forever, who tells everyone that "They are perfectly safe". Then I will believe him.

That means everyone on nuclear subs and aircraft carriers are dead then... oh wait!
 
That's just a question of lifetime. Run them for 40 years and your $15 billion for a 3GWe plant will turn out to under $0.015/kWh (assuming constant full load).
Where did $0.015/kwh come from? Here is an interesting report by a MIT faculty group to study the future of nuclear power done in 2003. http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/

Granted it 6 years old and every nuclear plant now being built has billions in cost overruns. Here are the chapters I am quoting from; http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/pdf/nuclearpower-ch4-9.pdf

Plus this is the real world, on average a countries nuclear capacity as a whole is never 100%.
In 2000, the capacity factors for the nuclear plants in
France were 76%, for those in Japan 79%, and for those
in South Korea, 91%. (Notes page 45 in report; page 17 in pdf)


Since they are comparing nuclear costs to coal and gas they use overnight cost not all-in cost/installed costs and they are using $2,000kwh overnight which is no where close to the all-in estimates $6000kwh utilities companies are forecasting for current constructions, and that doesn't include cost overruns. Here is a very telling quote;
We have not relied on construction cost
data for U.S. plants completed in the late 1980s
and early 1990s; if we had, the average overnight
construction cost in 2002 U.S. dollars would
have been much higher. (page 40 in the report, page 11 pdf)

It does mention a number close to yours;
In addition, the average operation and maintenance
costs of U.S. nuclear plants (including
(though average O&M costs had fallen to about
$18/MWe-hr and the lowest cost quartile of
fuel) were over $20/MWh during the 1990s
plants to about $13/MWe-hr by 2001)8, rather
than the $10/MWe-hr often assumed in many
paper engineering cost studies...
As previously discussed, our base case assumes
that O&M costs are 15 mills/kWe-hr (page 38 in report; page 10 in pdf)
But that $0.015/kwh is for Operation and Maintenance only, not taking into account construction costs. And their charts are on pages 42-43 for the 40 year life cycle you mentioned running at 85% capacity(more realistic than full load) is $0.067, but that is using their base overnight cost of $2000/kwh not all-in cost(again, not realistic). Even with the their base number, with all those assumptions of what the cost are, the lifetime cost is still 25% more than your number, which in statistics is equivalent to being miles/km(s) apart. Telling any public company that their cost have increased 25% would be devastating not only to their bottom line, but stock prices too.

Another very telling quote;
The cost improvements we project are plausible
but unproven. It should be emphasized, that the
cost improvements required to make nuclear
power competitive with coal are significant:
25% reduction in construction costs; greater
than a 25% reduction in non-fuel O&M costs
compared to recent historical experience
(reflected in the base case), reducing the construction
time from 5 years (already optimistic)
to 4 years, and achieving an investment environment
in which nuclear power plants can be
financed under the same terms and conditions
as can coal plants. Moreover, under what we
consider to be optimistic, but plausible assumptions,
nuclear is never less costly than coal.(page 41 in report; page 13 in pdf)
China's new construction of the plants with the Westinghouse AP1000 (the same reactor being planned for construction in South Carolina, Florida and Georgia) won't go online a until 2016 at the earliest and they started construction last year. So their already optimistic 5 years is in actuality 8 in reality and that is in a totalitarian government. I can't see a western liberal democracy building them any faster.
Again this is a 6 year old report and costs have increased tremendously since.

narf said:
PS: I love those solar plants, just wanted to state facts :rolleyes:
I just wanted to set the facts straight. :cool:
 
Last edited:
Where did $0.015/kwh come from?

I took your claim of "$13-$18 BILLION each for new nuclear power plants with a cost to consumers of between $5000 and $6000/kWe".

Let's assume $15 billion and 3GWe output.
Let's assume 100% load for 40 years of life.

That's just over 1PWh generated, or just under $0.015 per kWh.


To summarize: They came from your post. Transferred to a different unit, putting your ginormous figure into context.

Of course, the assumptions are not real-world ones, but they keep the maths simple. Assume 50% load if you like, $0.03 per kWh. Add your $0.015 per kWh for operation and maintenance if you like, $0.045 per kWh. Still significantly cheaper than what the end user is paying for the power.




Oh yeah, if there was a decent hydrogen infrastructure all that overnight power could be put to good use.




all-in estimates $6000kwh

Ouch? Running my PC+display (assuming 333W) is supposed to cost $2000 per hour? :tease:
 
I took your claim of "$13-$18 BILLION each for new nuclear power plants with a cost to consumers of between $5000 and $6000/kWe".

Let's assume $15 billion and 3GWe output.
Let's assume 100% load for 40 years of life.

That's just over 1PWh generated, or just under $0.015 per kWh.


To summarize: They came from your post. Transferred to a different unit, putting your ginormous figure into context.
Sooo.....you made it up, with out knowing the context of where those numbers I wrote came from. Plus where is there a reactor project that produces 3GWe for $15billion? Every plant that is coming online that I have read of is a two reactor project that adds 2.2Gwe. Even France's new reactors the, European Pressurized Reactor, are only rated at 1.6Gw and the currently the closest one to being completed is over 3 1/2 years behind schedule and 50% over budget and climbing. So from the very start your math is off.

narf said:
Of course, the assumptions are not real-world ones, but they keep the maths simple.
Hate to break this to you, but life isn't simple. Your simplified math is off by at least 30%.


narf said:
Ouch? Running my PC+display (assuming 333W) is supposed to cost $2000 per hour? :tease:
I know you are joking, but that $6000 is the all-in cost for a new nuclear power plant to generate 1 kw/h, I don't want it to get twisted for those viewing at home.


http://www.sptimes.com/2007/12/12/State/Nuclear_power_costs_s.shtml
Progress Energy's early estimates ranged from $1,800 to nearly $3,200. FPL recently offered a much higher range of $3,108 per kilowatt to $4,540. Moody's Investor Services offered an October estimate of $6,000 per kilowatt. A year ago, Progress Energy quoted costs of $2-billion to $3-billion for a one-reactor project in Levy County, and later said that it might build two reactors. The St. Petersburg utility selected a new reactor called the Westinghouse AP1000 -- the same technology FPL is considering. So why the enormous difference in their costs? Lyash[CEO of Progress Energy] said that the early estimates were "generic overnight costs." It didn't include interest costs, price escalation, the $47-million the utility spent buying land, or the cost of more than 200 miles of transmission lines the utility will need to run through 10 counties. By contrast, Scroggs' estimate of $12-billion to $18-billion for FPL's plant is "all in," and includes costs like transmission, site preparation, financing and price escalation. "To understand how it really impacts customers, you have to talk about the all-in costs," Scroggs said
And in some states here in the US, such as Florida, make it perfectly legal for power companies to raise rates to cover construction cost before the plant even goes on line.
 
The numbers are unimportant really. Because circumstances will shift the meaning of those numbers and redefine what is econimical and what isn't.
 
Part of the problem is that governments will not actually publish the true costs due to National Security concerns - now that tells you so many things. ... Also they probably do not know - we have yet to find a place to dump our radioactive rubbish - we leave them on the generating sites - can not do that for ever now can we?

That is problems indigenous to the UK. I can go online and find how much it cost to build our reactors, how much it costs to produce electricity (0.20 SEK/kWh including everything) and where and when our deep storage will be constructed (build start is scheduled for 2015). It's likely there will be space for hire, reserve your place now. Finland and France are pretty open about costs as well.
 
Last edited:
Your simplified math is off by at least 30%.

I accept an error of 30%. In fact, that's a great result.



that $6000 is the all-in cost for a new nuclear power plant to generate 1 kw/h

1kW/h? Really?


That's neither a unit of energy (W) nor of work (Ws), that's a unit for increase of energy over time. For example, if a reactor took 10 hours to get to full 1GW capacity you'd say it's a 100MW/h reactor (assuming linear powerup).



I just assumed you meant kWh instead of kW/h, in that case using electronic devices would be really expensive.
 
narf said:
I accept an error of 30%. In fact, that's a great result.
There is no real world example of a 3GWe plant being built for $15 billion, that is why I wrote "at least." Again from the 6 year old MIT report, their unrealistic base assumptions is 25% more than your number, and consider they are using $2000/KWe and not the current estimates of $6000/KWe, one can argue they are off by 30%. I was being very generous with the 30%. Honestly though, you would accept a error rate of 30%?!? You are satisfied with a 4, that is quite astonishing. Ausreichend is not acceptable to me, but to each their own I guess.


1kW/h? Really?


That's neither a unit of energy (W) nor of work (Ws), that's a unit for increase of energy over time. For example, if a reactor took 10 hours to get to full 1GW capacity you'd say it's a 100MW/h reactor (assuming linear powerup).



I just assumed you meant kWh instead of kW/h, in that case using electronic devices would be really expensive.
You are absolutely right. It was my error. What I should have typed was KWe, not kw/h. For nuclear power plants that are currently under construction $6000 is the all-in cost to produce 1KWe, and that is at the low end of the estimates.





Edit:
MacGuffin said:
The numbers are unimportant really. Because circumstances will shift the meaning of those numbers and redefine what is econimical and what isn't.
Only if the benefit of nuclear power out ways all the cost, from waste to nonproliferation, and that has yet to be seen.


Truly, all I care about is how much energy is going to cost in terms of dollar value, not social value, and I have yet to be convinced that nuclear is economically viable.
 
Last edited:
For nuclear power plants that are currently under construction $6000 is the all-in cost to produce 1KWe, and that is at the low end of the estimates.

Ok, let's start at that then instead of the two-digit billions you quoted earlier.

$6000/kWe?
40 years of operation? $150/kWe per year.
82% efficiency/load/uptime? (equivalent to 300 of 365 days per year, keeping the maths simple again) $.5/kWe per day.
24 hours in a day? $0.02/kWh.




Keeping a power plant alive for 40 years is reasonable, several plants in Germany are doing just that or are about to.
82% load is based on a plant close to home, in 2006 it has provided just over 10TWh. It's rated at about 1.4GWe, that'd be a theoretical capacity of 12TWh per year - working out to 83% load.
 
And it costs how much to de-commission - being a private concern they will go out of business when the power station runs out of earnings potential - who is to pay then? I know the government i.e. you and me.
 
And it costs how much to de-commission - being a private concern they will go out of business when the power station runs out of earnings potential - who is to pay then? I know the government i.e. you and me.

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/students/decommissioning.html
NRC has very strict rules for shutting down a plant. The NRC requires plants to finish the process within 60 years of closing. Since it may cost $300 million or more to shut down and decommission a plant, the NRC requires plant owners to set aside money when the plant is still operating to pay for the future shutdown costs.
 
24 hours in a day? $0.02/kWh.
Still not competitive with other power plants over the same time frame in developed countries and not even close in developing parts of the world, your point?

Edit:

And that is only all-in construction cost, add in operations and maintenance cost, since we are rounding it is closer to $0.04/kWh.

Again this is the low end of the estimates.
 
Last edited:
Still not competitive with other power plants over the same time frame in developed countries and not even close in developing parts of the world, your point?

Tired of arguing more, so I'll just quote http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strome...hiedener_Kraftwerks-_und_Stromerzeugungsarten

Photovoltaic power: 4000?/kWe to build, 11% load over a year, no fuel costs - over 40 years that's 0.1?/kWh.

Offshore wind power: 1500?/kWe to build, 38% load, no fuel - 0.01?/kWh.

Coal: 800?/kWe to build, 66% load, 0.03?/kWh fuel and running costs - 0.03?/kWh. (Add over 0.06?/kWh external costs for environmental damage)

Nuclear: 2800?/kWe to build, 75% load, 0.003?/kWh fuel and running costs - 0.01?/kWh.



Turns out it is ten times cheaper than solar cells, as expensive as offshore windpower and three times cheaper than coal (ten times cheaper if you count environmental damage). I'd say same price to ten times cheaper is competitive, no?
 
Last edited:
Tired of arguing more, so I'll just quote http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strome...hiedener_Kraftwerks-_und_Stromerzeugungsarten

Photovoltaic power: 4000?/kWe to build, 11% load over a year, no fuel costs - over 40 years that's 0.1?/kWh.

Offshore wind power: 1500?/kWe to build, 38% load, no fuel - 0.01?/kWh.

Coal: 800?/kWe to build, 66% load, 0.03?/kWh fuel and running costs - 0.03?/kWh. (Add over 0.06?/kWh external costs for environmental damage)

Nuclear: 2800?/kWe to build, 75% load, 0.003?/kWh fuel and running costs - 0.01?/kWh.



Turns out it is ten times cheaper than solar cells, as expensive as offshore windpower and three times cheaper than coal (ten times cheaper if you count environmental damage). I'd say same price to ten times cheaper is competitive, no?
Umm...no. Look at the notes right below the chart. Their figures for nuclear power are from the European Pressurized Reactor, which is still under construction, 3 1/2 years behind schedule and 50% over budget and rising. That is why 2800?/kWe is over 60% lower than the all-in price estimates I was quoting in US$. Plus there is no reference notes for their operating cost for nuclear, so as far as I am concerned it is made up, again this wikipedia you are quoting...

Edit:
It seems we will never convince the other, so lets just drop it.
 
Last edited:
Their figures for nuclear power are from the European Pressurized Reactor, which is still under construction, 3 1/2 years behind schedule and 50% over budget and rising. That is why 2800?/kWe is over 60% lower than the all-in price estimates I was quoting in US$.

Well, you wanted to talk about new plants, so I used a new plant as well. They intend a 60-year life as well, should result in a reasonable drop for the cost per kWh.

new nuclear power plants with a cost to consumers of between $5000 and $6000/kWe.



It seems we will never convince the other, so lets just drop it.

I guess not if maths don't work :lol:
 
Top