Comparing Energy Costs

[javaguru]

Great site, wish I had found it before I wasted so much of my time tracking down the wheel.

Comparing Energy Costs of Nuclear, Coal, Gas, Wind and Solar

That's the Cliff Notes....

If you want an in depth analysis with numbers then read the article and replies...very informative.

 

[javaguru]

Waiting for the enviro-religious to chime in on green energy.

 

[youpissmeoff]

Omg the data in that article is so terribly wrong it is almost noy worth discussing.

Actual construction cost of a nuclear power plant is around $5k to $6k / kwh vs $500 to $600 for a gas plant. Thermal coal is around $ 1,000 I think.

Here is a hint how far off the article is, look at the gas plant cost vs a petrol plant being the same cost. Aural gas prices are almost currently at $18 to $30. / bbl of oil in energy equivalent terms and that is without considering the additional efficiency of a combined cycle plant vs a thermal plant.

I am not against nuclear power and it is actually the greenest solution we have but your economics are completely bogus.

Find a less biased article worthy of proper debate.

 

[mrplunkey]

Omg the data in that article is so terribly wrong it is almost noy worth discussing.

Actual construction cost of a nuclear power plant is around $5k to $6k / kwh vs $500 to $600 for a gas plant. Thermal coal is around $ 1,000 I think.

Here is a hint how far off the article is, look at the gas plant cost vs a petrol plant being the same cost. Aural gas prices are almost currently at $18 to $30. / bbl of oil in energy equivalent terms and that is without considering the additional efficiency of a combined cycle plant vs a thermal plant.

I am not against nuclear power and it is actually the greenest solution we have but your economics are completely bogus.

Find a less biased article worthy of proper debate.

How do you tease apart the actual construction costs of a nuclear plant (steel and concrete) versus the artificial costs (impact studies, lobbying, lawsuits, regulatory complaince)?

The #2 guy at ORNL told me a few years ago that a nuclear power plant is surprisingly cheap to build -- but the soft costs drive the price up incredibly.

 

[nydj66]

Nuke would be a fanstic CO2-free, green energy source except...

there's nowhere near enough uranium in the earth to meet our energy needs.

 

[youpissmeoff]

How do you tease apart the actual construction costs of a nuclear plant (steel and concrete) versus the artificial costs (impact studies, lobbying, lawsuits, regulatory complaince)?

The #2 guy at ORNL told me a few years ago that a nuclear power plant is surprisingly cheap to build -- but the soft costs drive the price up incredibly.

Oh - permitting and delays are a huge cost portion in the USA - I don't argue that but even in China where you have basically unlimited labor and lac regs, construction cost is 2 or 3 times a gas plant.

Part of that is extra steel and cement (containment)- and part is every plant is built from scratch where a gas plant is almost cookie cutter drop in of factory built turbines(economies of scale)

 

[miplank]

I think YPMO is setting us all up for a nice lil stock tip

 

[youpissmeoff]

Lol - not here.

 

[youpissmeoff]

BTW - there is very few industries as fucked over by big brother as the power industry. Carter banned burning natural gas for power so they had to go build coal and nuclear to fill the gap.

They drove up the cost of nuclear plant two and three fold with delays off permits process and additional plant design changes then fought the utilities trying to pass these cost on to consumers.

Now they are telling all the coal plants they have three years to meet new EPA regulations. Old plants can't afford all cost to make changes so they are having to shut down. And what are they replacing with???? - Natural Gas Fiedler plants.

Wind and solar will end up getting screwed over some day as well. They will cut all their tax credits and let them go broke when they are no longer the flavor of the day.

 

[calveless wonder]

I used to skip over a lot of java's threads a few years back...and i think most people still do, but they're missing out.

i generally learn a lot from the stuff he posts. great critical thinker

 

[SpyWizard]

Burn coal... it keeps american jobs local..


"After all the world needs ditch diggers too ya know"
quote Caddy Shack

 

[javaguru]

Omg the data in that article is so terribly wrong it is almost noy worth discussing.

Actual construction cost of a nuclear power plant is around $5k to $6k / kwh vs $500 to $600 for a gas plant. Thermal coal is around $ 1,000 I think.

Here is a hint how far off the article is, look at the gas plant cost vs a petrol plant being the same cost. Aural gas prices are almost currently at $18 to $30. / bbl of oil in energy equivalent terms and that is without considering the additional efficiency of a combined cycle plant vs a thermal plant.

I am not against nuclear power and it is actually the greenest solution we have but your economics are completely bogus.

Find a less biased article worthy of proper debate.

Well, many gas plants these days plant a few solar panels around their site and get tax credits as well as guaranteed loans so it skews their construction cost. Likewise, nuclear plants pay a risk premium for their private loans because of an irrational fear of nuclear power which increases construction cost. The costs associated with constructing nuclear plants are based on thirty year old data where the technology was only a couple of decades old...of course there were design failures and cost overruns; It's like comparing the cost of the first iphone to the latest models, costs decrease as more units are produced.

Gas plants are used for supplementary production because they come online quickly; Nuclear is primary production so it's almost like comparing apples and oranges. If your assertion is that primary production should be natural gas then we need to discuss commodity prices as opposed to construction costs because operating costs are volatile with natural gas and considering that a nuclear plant and a gas plant can operate for 100 years, operating costs become the driver that would create the major expense,construction cost is a small part of the equation over 100 years.

 

[javaguru]

It's interesting to note that hydroelectric is the cheapest but nobody discusses it. We get about 6% of our electricity from hydro while utilizing 30% of potential capacity based on optimal sites for hydro power. If we tripled the investment in hydro we could potentially create 18% of our current demand hydro which is carbon free and cheap as hell; Cheap energy drives economic growth.

 

[youpissmeoff]

Well, many gas plants these days plant a few solar panels around their site and get tax credits as well as guaranteed loans so it skews their construction cost. Likewise, nuclear plants pay a risk premium for their private loans because of an irrational fear of nuclear power which increases construction cost. The costs associated with constructing nuclear plants are based on thirty year old data where the technology was only a couple of decades old...of course there were design failures and cost overruns; It's like comparing the cost of the first iphone to the latest models, costs decrease as more units are produced.

Gas plants are used for supplementary production because they come online quickly; Nuclear is primary production so it's almost like comparing apples and oranges. If your assertion is that primary production should be natural gas then we need to discuss commodity prices as opposed to construction costs because operating costs are volatile with natural gas and considering that a nuclear plant and a gas plant can operate for 100 years, operating costs become the driver that would create the major expense,construction cost is a small part of the equation over 100 years.

You prioritize base load on ability to produce 100% of the time, which gas, coal, and nuclear all can do - wind, solar and Hydro can't. If you have Nuclear, it has priority because it can't be brought up and down easily but it is not required for a base load.

Economics are run off of time value of money. Up front construction cost tend to be the biggest driver in that equation. What happens 100 yrs from now matters does not because it is discounted to almost zero.

 

[youpissmeoff]

It's interesting to note that hydroelectric is the cheapest but nobody discusses it. We get about 6% of our electricity from hydro while utilizing 30% of potential capacity based on optimal sites for hydro power. If we tripled the investment in hydro we could potentially create 18% of our current demand hydro which is carbon free and cheap as hell; Cheap energy drives economic growth.

Nobody builds Hydro in the US because the environmentalist go ape shit every time someone considers damming up a river. Go read how long the delays were on China's Three Gorges project Laos's Nam Thuan dam. Those were NGO's from around the world as not many people in country actually give a shit.

 

[likemystatus]

 

[kx250rider]

Nuclear has always been my preference for the future (including now), and THAT is coming from someone who paid for this laptop on which this post was written, with oil-related income. If that doesn't tell you something....

Solar is fine for small stuff, and it's great for battery chargers, farm machines, entry gate motors, and stuff like that, but not for municipal generation. Coal, oil & gas are reliable & safe, but costly. Hydroelectric, as the articles says, is perhaps the cheapest, but it's unreliable (in places where the river recedes in dry rain years) and very costly to construct. And like nuclear power, will once in awhile erase a few cities off the map (do a quick google search on Los Angeles March 12, 1928). The Saint Francis Dam and twin-powerhouse hydroelectric plant failed, and wiped the CA cities of Santa Clarita, Piru, Fillmore, Santa Paula, Saticoy and Ventura practically off the map. The greenies would probably also ignore the fact that the St. Francis disaster permanently altered the Santa Clara River, and made extinct several plants and bird species, and left hunks of rusty rebar and concrete chunks the size of office buildings lying all over the Santa Clarita Valley.

The bottom line is that mankind wants electricity and heat, and no matter how we get it, there is a sacrifice to safety and nature. Pay up, use it, and live with it.......

Charles

 

[javaguru]

Nobody builds Hydro in the US because the environmentalist go ape shit every time someone considers damming up a river. Go read how long the delays were on China's Three Gorges project Laos's Nam Thuan dam. Those were NGO's from around the world as not many people in country actually give a shit.

Yeah, that's my point.... I watch MSNBC and I think it's ironic for Rachel Maddow to stand next to Hoover Dam and proclaim, "Only the government can do this." I agree with her that capitol intensive public works need loan guarantees and in some cases funding but there is no way you could undertake a Hoover Dam type project in the United States thanks to lefties like Rachel Maddow.

 

[javaguru]

You prioritize base load on ability to produce 100% of the time, which gas, coal, and nuclear all can do - wind, solar and Hydro can't. If you have Nuclear, it has priority because it can't be brought up and down easily but it is not required for a base load.

Economics are run off of time value of money. Up front construction cost tend to be the biggest driver in that equation. What happens 100 yrs from now matters does not because it is discounted to almost zero.

I'm familiar with financials but you can't dismiss the fact that nuclear plants have a stable input unlike natural gas so you can project long term costs more easily. Even if you you assume the MIT study is accurate about cost per KWH...From the articles author...
"I don’t mean to be arrogant or crass, but I don’t particularly care who agrees with my numbers. The MIT study you cite and link to has VERY limited information regarding their cost estimates. They basically throw up a number with very little to support it in terms of references or calculations – both of which I display to support my work.

My estimates come from numbers and calculations that are fully disclosed in this article and the attached Excel document. Even using $9 billion, the high range for construction costs of a new 1,150 MW Gen III reactor, over 40 years (we know the actual life will be 60 or longer, meaning the actual cost will be even less because it is spread over a longer life) the cost is $0.044 per kWh – this is equivalent to coal.

I honestly don’t know where everyone else is getting their numbers because I have yet to find someone who puts their research and calculations front and center. I’ve done that and come up with my answers – let’s see if someone can challenge them with some credible, valid points. Because UVDIV up there with his incomplete understanding of the time value of money hasn’t debunked the calculations, even if he thinks he did."

 

[musclemom]

I don't think any of it matters, seriously. In 50 to 100 years, unless something truly miraculous happens, humanity it going to be in a world of trouble. Coal is going to be increasingly relied on, which is going to dump toxins into the environment (heavy metals into open water, filthy air causing lung diseases). Nuclear power is dangerous on so many levels (anybody have any idea how much radiation was dumped into the environment after the tsunami in Japan? Nevermind the problem of the waste and particularly losing the stuff or having extremists steal it). Meanwhile, oil is finite but demand increases, it's going to run out eventually, that's a fact, just like drinking water. Many people WILL be drinking converted sewage in the future Converting Domestic Sewage Into Drinking Water M.I.C. Gadget Combine those two facts with continued increasing population and the outlook is grim, particularly for America. This country was not designed to support the European type gas and oil prices that are inevitable.

If the world leaders don't get their collective shit together and start cooperating at a global level, looking at the big picture and the future success of the species as a whole, things are going to get very, very ugly in a few decades.

 

[javaguru]

I don't think any of it matters, seriously. In 50 to 100 years, unless something truly miraculous happens, humanity it going to be in a world of trouble. Coal is going to be increasingly relied on, which is going to dump toxins into the environment (heavy metals into open water, filthy air causing lung diseases). Nuclear power is dangerous on so many levels (anybody have any idea how much radiation was dumped into the environment after the tsunami in Japan? Nevermind the problem of the waste and particularly losing the stuff or having extremists steal it). Meanwhile, oil is finite but demand increases, it's going to run out eventually, that's a fact, just like drinking water. Many people WILL be drinking converted sewage in the future Converting Domestic Sewage Into Drinking Water M.I.C. Gadget Combine those two facts with continued increasing population and the outlook is grim, particularly for America. This country was not designed to support the European type gas and oil prices that are inevitable.

If the world leaders don't get their collective shit together and start cooperating at a global level, looking at the big picture and the future success of the species as a whole, things are going to get very, very ugly in a few decades.

The Malthusians, neo-Malthusians, and most recently the Club of Rome have made the same argument but technology and innovation have outpaced their theoretical predictions.