So the difference between wind and nuclear is that wind doesn’t work most of the time.

More importantly, in the US wind projects give higher ROI than nuclear projects, so much more private money is available for continued exponential growth. Lightwaterreactors have a negative learning curve whereas wind has a decently positive learning curve, so it’s unlikely that the difference will be reversed without some major breakthroughs. I think gen3+ is a nonstarter but gen4 is interesting, although I don’t know the learning curves, because it’s too early to tell.

Decarolis and Keith suggest future wind providing half of US electricity will cost around 6 cents/kWh.

http://www.ucalgary.ca/ ~keith/ papers/ 72.Decarolis.2005.Threshold.e.pdf

See the chart on Joe Romm’s Climate Progress post “Must read McKinsey report shatters myths on cost of curbing climate change” at http://climateprogress.org/ 2008/ 06/ 27/ must-read-mckinsey-report-shatters-myths-on-costs-of-curbing-climate-change/

Different analyses can yield widely different cost estimates, depending on assumptions and depending on what costs are included. It’s no good to compare a study that only estimates nuclear costs with one that only estimates wind costs. Mr. Severance agrees with this. Every study done to date that compares them on equal terms shows that they are about the same, or at least the difference isn’t big enough to brag about. Two examples can be seen at Costs. Nothing has changed that would alter this conclusion. So the difference between wind and nuclear is that wind doesn’t work most of the time.

(From my post…)
“All that considered, new nuclear has to both compete with seven cent wind and stay competitive for 3-4 decades with all introduced forms of power generation in order for investors to recoup their investment and delayed earnings.””

You know Rod, I’m just too stupid to understand what is wrong with my statement.

Here’s what I know about markets: Purchasers buy the least expensive option that fills their needs. In a non-constrained market, which we basically have.

Here’s what I know about technology: At this moment in time tremendous material and intellectual resources are being spent in the pursuit of cheaper renewable power sources. Some new sources have passed the prototype phase and are being installed at a fairly large scale. Output prices are decent and expected to fall.

Now please explain how you can produce new nuclear for a cost at or less per kWh as the other players in the field.

Also show us how nuclear will be able to drop its price in order to stay competitive as the prices of alternate generation techniques drop.

And please give us the sort of detailed numbers that Severance did.

Otherwise I’m going to think you’re blowing smoke.

“All that considered, new nuclear has to both compete with seven cent wind and stay competitive for 3-4 decades with all introduced forms of power generation in order for investors to recoup their investment and delayed earnings.”

There are many places in the world where the current market price of delivered, on demand electricity is well in excess of 10 cents per kilowatt hour and a substantial number of places where it is in excess of 25 cents per kilowatt hour.

The product that large wind farms with multi MW turbines – the ones that approach the cost numbers that you keep quoting – is substantially different from the product that I expect moderate sized nuclear power plants to produce. The power plants that I used to operate and the ones that I intend to eventually build and operate produce exactly as much power as the customer needs, when and where he or she needs it (within capacity limits, of course).

That power source can be installed in buildings about the size of a fire house in places like Alaska, islands, and remote areas of Alberta. (They have been installed in places like Greenland, Antarctica, Arlington, VA and the northern reaches of Wyoming. They have been operated on board ships in harbors in places like downtown Fort Lauderdale, New York City, San Francisco, San Diego, and Norfolk.)

Today, many of the target markets for our products install large diesel engines as their selected power source. The decision makers recognize that intermittently available electricity is about as valuable as windfall from a backyard orange tree.

So let’s go back to industry figures which are averaging $-.075 and falling for new installations. To some extent that 7.5 cents is pulled up be early higher cost installations placed in less than optimal sites.

All that considered, new nuclear has to both compete with seven cent wind and stay competitive for 3-4 decades with all introduced forms of power generation in order for investors to recoup their investment and delayed earnings.

Every one who writes their calculations down and makes them public says it can’t.

The only people who say it can do so based on nothing but their say-so. Which is a very thin soup.

—

David – it is my understanding that the 25-30 cent figure is 2019 dollars based on an assumed 3% rate of annual inflation. If you back that number up to 2009 dollars you get 19-23 cents which is in line with other projections such as the ones Moe mentioned and in addition those of MIT, Keystone and the nuclear industry itself.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/ tol/ business/ industry_sectors/ utilities/ article4888149.ece

Here’s what a paper presented to the Australian Nuclear Forum stated re costs of new nuclear power:

“The 1100MWe Westinghouse AP1000, for example, has a projected overnight capital cost of US$1200/kw, a construction time of 36 months, simplified licensing, a 60 year operating life, a capacity factor of 90% or more and generating costs of US 3.5 cents/kWh.”

http://oznucforum.customer.netspace.net.au/TP2PMoore.pdf

The stark difference between the paper you are discussing here and things like this leave me unable to know who to believe.

The MIT study, The Future of Nuclear Power put things into a perspective that I do believe, i.e. :

“Investments in commercial nuclear generating facilities will only be forthcoming if investors expect the cost of producing electricity using nuclear power will be lower than the risk adjusted costs associated with alternative electric generation technologies.”

And so when I hear that there is increasing interest in building new nuclear facilities I find it difficult in the extreme to put any credence at all in someone who states the real cost is 25 – 30 cents a kwhr.

No one will build them if that’s what they cost.

The Economist recent Special Report on Energy quoted the Electric Power Research Institute and put new nuclear at 6.5 cents a kw/hr, less than coal which the Economist put at 5 cents without CCS, but cheaper than coal if a price is put on its carbon emissions. The MIT study is a bit dated, i.e. 2003, and it stated nuclear at 6.7 cents kw/hr with an overnight capital cost of $2000/kWe.

[JR: Cost of existing power in France is irrelevant. Quote from an Australian pro-nuke group is hardly persuasive. Even Time mag put cost of new nukes at 15-20 cents/kWh, and Moody's at over 15.]

“If new nuclear costs 30 cents/kWh, but a different overall approach could generate (or avoid the need to generate) those same kWh’s for 10 or 15 cents/kWh, which is better for ratepayers? Which approach will best lessen the chance of severe rate increases?”

I don’t think anyone picked up on the words “overall approach” or the words “(or avoid the need to generate)”.

An overall approach STARTS with energy efficiency measures, which studies have consistently priced out (depending on the measure) from a negative cost, to an upper range of about 3 cents/kWH saved.

Once you factor in truly serious energy efficiency measures, Red, I am sure you can get to the (rather high, if it is the overall approach I mention) range of perhaps 10 to 15 cents/kWh I mentioned purely as an example.

Several commentators have asked for detailed studies of just HOW we can do this without nuclear — i.e. the full costs of a reliable electric grid moving forward if we use a mix of energy efficiency measures (DSM in utility jargon, for Demand Side Management), renewables, storage, and gas turbines. I fully agree, and unfortunately we have not seen enough in the public discussions at least, as to how this works.

That is where we need to go from here (probably not on Joe’s strings, though, they are getting really long already), and as quickly as possible.

Perhaps the new DOE could develop such studies and put them out there for all to see. Until we methodically put these options together with realistic numbere and a coordinated system approach, we will continue to just see the snippets of facts tossed back & forth. The nation deserves better, so we need to move as quickly as possible to sort out this new systems approach.

If nuclear power is to be viable from a business perspective, then the capital costs (and construction time frames) need to be significantly reduced. This suggests some form of more advanced type of nuclear plant than the earlier versions built in the 1970’s.