Saudis want aid if world cuts oil dependence

narf said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yeah, a new plant that isn't completed and the final budget is uncertain. "Should"? What does that mean? Is that another assumption? About your new plant still under construction;
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0c9b59aa-9665-11de-84d1-00144feabdc0.html
Ms Lauvergeon said on Monday it was impossible to determine the final cost of the Finnish project, raising concerns that there could be more charges to come. The project, originally due to come on line in 2009, is already three years behind schedule.
Click to expand...

narf said:
I guess not if maths don't work :lol:
Click to expand...
narf said:
Of course, the assumptions are not real-world ones, but they keep the maths simple.
Click to expand...
Its not my fault you want to keep the math simple and not check where the numbers you are using come from. Its funny how you keep trying to move the meter stick and yet the your simple math still does not equal out.


Edit:
I found that MIT did in fact update its 2003 report this year.
http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/pdf/nuclearpower-update2009.pdf
While the U.S. nuclear industry has continued to demonstrate improved operating performance, there remains significant uncertainty about the capital costs, and the cost of its financing, which are the main components of the cost of electricity from new nuclear plants.

Since 2003 construction costs for all types of large-scale engineered projects have escalated dramatically. The estimated cost of constructing a nuclear power plant has increased at a rate of 15% per year heading into the current economic downturn. This is based both on the cost of actual builds in Japan and Korea and on the projected cost of new plants planned for in the United States. Capital costs for both coal and natural gas have increased as well, although not by as much. The cost of natural gas and coal that peaked sharply is now receding. Taken together, these escalating costs leave the situation close to where it was in 2003. The following table updates the cost estimates presented in the 2003 study

However, while the plants in Korea and Japan continue to be built on schedule, some of the recent construction cost and schedule experience, such as with the plant under construction in Finland, has not been encouraging.

If this risk premium can be eliminated, nuclear life cycle cost decreases from 8.4? /kWe-h to 6.6 ?/kWe-h and becomes competitive with coal and natural gas, even in the absence of carbon emission charge. (page 6-8 in report; pages 7-9 in pdf)
Click to expand...
So MIT has updated its math to $0.084kWh, still using an unrealistic base overnight cost of $4000kWe, and not the actual cost of estimates of $6000kWe. Nuclear can only be competitive with other sources of energy if a 20% reduction in kWh is achieved, or a carbon tax(aka carbon credit market) is initiated. And a carbon tax is only talked about in developed countries, what about the developing world? In the end I trust MIT's math more than your simplified math.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top