The (renewable) electron economy, part 11
So how much do renewables cost anyway? 30
-
Posted 10:08 AM on 11 Sep 2008
by Michael Hoexter -
Posted in
-
Read More About
Related Stories
Why buying cheap energy certificates worsens climate change
Add a Comment
You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
Comments
View as Threaded
KenG Posted 3:30 am
11 Sep 2008
I think the $.15 to $.20/kw cost for solar thermal is the current cost without storage. I'm not sure anyone can do more than speculate what the cost will be with large scale storage. There are many thermodynamic and efficiency issues to resolve to make this economic.
Even when "the fuel is free" operating costs need to be looked at. This is data that seems difficult to find, but I have seen information indicating that the operating cost of the solar thermal plants in California is about $.04/kw which approaches fossil wholesale costs.
When capital costs are the primary cost driver, facility lifetime becomes an issue. This also is impacted by the inflation assumptions. Right now, we are looking at 20 year lives for windmills and PV, 40 years or more for solar thermal, 40 to 80 years for fossil fuels and 60 to 80 years for nuclear plants. These may turn out to be optimistic or pessimistic but they impact economics.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 4:24 am
11 Sep 2008
Only in so much as it would harm Renewables ability to get private capital financing.
However, Renewables have no problem getting private capital financing.
Nuclear on the other hand, couldn't get private investment banks to even look at them. Much less take the plunge for huge risky slow capital loans.
-David Ahlport
Permalink
vakibs Posted 4:39 am
11 Sep 2008
You get my appreciation for several points that you acknowledged
That renewable technologies are diffuse (wow, I am glad to hear this)
That renewable technologies need more concrete and steel than a nuclear/coal plant of a similar wattage (direct consequence of 1).
That not all locations are equal for establishing renewable power. There are just a few places which are more windy and more sunny (running the risk of the small-is-beautiful crowd)
That energy storage mechanisms should be investigated big time to make renewable technologies meaningful.
Due to the intermittant nature and the disperse locatioins of renewable hotspots, we need a massive investment in the upgrade of the electric grid & make it smart.
The consequence of all these points is that renewable technologies will not be cheaper or cost competitive with fossil technologies. That's why I urge all the environmentalists to ditch using dollars and start using eco-dollars. It's time to vomit all the Amory Lovins kool-aid that we have been drinking.
Now, I don't consider coal/oil to be a competitor for renewables. It is a shitty technology and we all agree that it should die. The only competitor for different renewable technologies is nuclear power. The only thing we need to worry about is how much nuclear we have to accept in our energy mix : the answers range from 0% to 100%. I consider myself a pro-nuke and I will not go beyond 50%. You might be settling for much lesser.
GreyFlcn has referred to this very cute propaganda piece from NIRS with the following break-up on nuclear costs.
production (fuel + operation and maintenance + waste management + decomissioning): 4.5 cents/kwh
amortization (capital costs and interest payment): 6.83 cents/kwh
infrastructure (for an upgrade of electric grid) : 1.83 cents/kwh
sub-total : 13.16 cents/kwh
profit : 1.58 cents/kwh
transmission : 5.00 cents/kwh
total : 19.75 cents/kwh
The interesting thing to note is that nuclear fuel is a miniscule portion of the costs (an extreme anti-nuke projected that uranium mining and enrichment costs about 3 cents/kwh) In reality, this is much lesser.
Even taking this extreme acid-induced estimate, the kind of reactors that I am advocating (breeder reactors such as LFTR or IFR) burn 95% of the fuel instead of 0.05%, and thereby the cost of nuclear fuel falls down to just 0.03 cents/kwh. Due to such miniscule fuel costs, 4th generation nuclear power can be considered almost on par with renewables (fuel is essentially free !)
Moreover, these reactors produce far less radioactive waste (just 1% of the quantity) which needs to be stored for much lesser time (300 years instead of 10,000 years). The waste management costs fall much further as a result.
The costs that are left out of the above breakup are decomissioning costs, amortization costs and infrastructure costs.
Now, you saw my argument coming :) Let's estimate these very costs for your favorite solar technology.
Amortization : Capital costs for solar technology are bound to be higher, because it needs more concrete and more cement, as you have admitted yourself in the low power density fact. So, if you compute the interest using the same banks for the same amount of money borrowed, this interest will be higher.
Decomissioning : Solar technologies have a smaller lifetime than nuclear technologies (30 years instead of 80 years). And the decomissioning costs are higher, because a larger structure needs to be dismantled.
Infrastructure : The nitpicking that the anti-nukes have done over the updates to the electric grid that have to be done for nuclear technology are nothing in comparison to the complete redesign of the electric grid that is required for solar technologies. Energy storage or smart grid technology will push the prices even further (as KenG pointed out before me). And finally, as you have admitted, location is crucial in the setting up of solar technologies. Massive transmission cables need to be set up to supply power from deserts/oceans to the cities where people live. These costs will be a LOT higher than the corresponding costs for nuclear power.
What we didn't discuss are operation+management costs. New designs of nuclear reactors require almost zero supervison (For example, India has designed an inherently safe breeder reactor which takes in its stock of Thorium fuel pellets and produces non-stop power for 30 years, with no need to changing fuel rods). Solar power plants need a lot of manual supervision (Euphimistically speaking, several green-collar jobs will be created)
In all the spheres, solar power loses out to nuclear power. Using economics to support solar power is a bone-head tactic. The only power sources which win over nuclear in the realms of economics are dirty coal and big hydro. The next time you use the economics argument against nuclear power, remember that you are advocating for dirty coal.
The same fantasies that you dream of (economies of scale and mass production will bring down renewable costs : they apply to nuclear power as well). Heck, just standardizing the design and factory production of nuclear reactors will rapidly slash capital costs (Most nuclear advocates say these will come down from 9 billion dollars to 1 billion dollars for each plant).
LFTRs have several other technical advantages that will make them cheaper than the LWRs. They can also be made in small sizes, if so demanded by the small-is-beautiful crowd.
Ultimately, I say let's ditch dollar costs. We will never agree on these numbers and these are definitely not the numbers we need. What we have to work out are the environmental costs for each technology. On this terrain, renewables have a square chance of beating nuclear (depending on how you define environmental costs). So let's focus the debate on this direction.
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 4:46 am
11 Sep 2008
Solar thermal O&M is 2% to 4% of capital cost.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 5:01 am
11 Sep 2008
First, do you have any links on breeder reactors? Last I looked they had soaked up billions and never worked. All I see are references to something India or China are thinking of doing.
Second -- and this usually turns off most pro-nukers, not that I'm putting you in that category -- the only way you're going to build a lot of nukes with one good design is to nationalize the industry, as the French did (it's been semi-privatized now, but it's still run by the government). Otherwise, it's a mess
Third, were are the figures on costs going down? Since the 1970s at least, cost overruns have been normal.
And fourth, of course, is the waste.
But, as is usual for this kind of discussion, you bring up good points about solar, and actually, I think I have to agree with you on your central point -- you can't really compare solar (or wind) to fossil fuels, it's almost apples and oranges. Society is going to have to decide to put massive resources into solar and wind, no matter the cost, because in the long-term, fossil fuels are almost infinitely expensive, since they will run out and cause climate change.
But to say that massive resources need to be expended, then the next thing one would have to say is that governments are going to have to spend a lot of money. So the ultimate political problem will rear it's ugly head, namely, who pays? And while I think that governments could avoid too much "picking winners" by mostly providing the financing for these projects, at some point governments will probably wind up picking some "winners", as much as people don't like that idea. So I think that that is the reason, vakibs, you keep seeing the cost comparisons, because people don't want to go there, that is, go to government spending.
Permalink
KenG Posted 5:32 am
11 Sep 2008
If this is really true (adjusted for capacity factor) why is there a need for subsidies and incentives for solar power? Why is CSP projected at almost $.20/kw busbar cost on all the proposed CSP plants (without storage) that I am aware of?
Logic fails me here.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 5:44 am
11 Sep 2008
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 6:23 am
11 Sep 2008
In fact that's the best plan, subsidy and corporate welfare diversion. It's a revenue neutral way to fund renewable/conservation subsidies.
It also tends to price carbon, without a tax. But the Gore plan for a carbon tax, the amount collected rebated to everyone under say 200K in income. That's a fair, incorruptable alternative to the easily gamed cap and trade schemes.
I say do both, subsidy diversion, on a per kwh basis to consumers who generate GHG free kwhs or save kwh. And a Gore style carbon tax, rebated to 95% of citizens. now that's a stimulis plan.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
solarwind Posted 6:59 am
11 Sep 2008
source:http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN084806662 ...
But good posts all around.
Side note: we have to remind ourselves how incredible fossil fuels are - the intrisic chemical energy density is astounding. It will always be difficult for renewables (which harness real-time solar energy) to compete with fossil-fuels (concentrated solar energy).
Renewables have already reached a very advanced technology level to even allow us to debate grid parity. Pretty impressive. However, it hasn't happened yet and need additional subsidization...where is Congress btw? dumb. A carbon tax is a solution that makes a whole lot of sense to me...energy prices would increase, income taxes would decrease. And rebates for the poor so the carbon tax wouln't screw them. The problem would solve itself. A tweaked "free-market". Brilliant
Permalink
mwright1 Posted 8:01 am
11 Sep 2008
Like you I'm just a computer engineer so I have to refer to the experts.
Breeder reactors aren't off the ground. The best India with all its massive resources claims it can do is 300MW of capacity by 2020. I'm sorry we don't have that long -- see Hansen et al.
Diverting a regular proportion of our mining, materials industrial capacity will give us a solar thermal with storage based infrastructure backing up wind power and rooftop PV.
You have not answered the questions on density.. Nuclear is so diffuse it's pollution has to be spread across 1000s of kilometres of Australian country side.
Where are your figures. Show us the numbers.. How many square kilometres including all the mining and the chemicals for scrubbing and their mining.
Steel and Glass are relatively simple to make and process.
Not so for all the inputs required to process uranium and scrub waste products etc.
Please show the numbers or get off the bandwagon
Permalink
Earl Killian Posted 8:59 am
11 Sep 2008
TES has the potential to improve costs by allowing the turbines to be used more hours of the day (up to 24).
CSP without TES power plants are disadvantaged in cost per kWh than other plants because their capital investment must be charged against operation a fraction of a day, instead of over 24 hours a day. In some sense this results from the artificial separation of conventional plants into baseload and peakers. If you build a coal plant, a paired peaker is essentially required. It would be more appropriate, IMO, to lump these two plants together, rather than keeping them separate. It is the cost of power from the combination that is relevant.
One reason Ausra sees Thermal Energy Storage (TES) as important to bringing down the cost of their Concentrated Solar Power plants is that it allows them to amortize the capital cost of turbines over a larger number of hours per day. For example, in a CSP plant without TES, the capital cost consists of the collectors (cost C) and the turbines (cost T). Then C+T is amortized over 12 hours a day (and only at peak power for part of that). The cost per kWh is proportional to (C+T)/C. The cost is reduced if you add TES (cost S) where S<T. For example, double the collectors, and now you can run your turbine, say, 8 more hours a day. The capital cost is 2C+T+S and the cost per kWh is proportional to (2C+T+S)/2C. Triple the field relative to the turbine, and now you're running 24h a day: (3C+T+2S)/3C (breakeven is still S=T).<p>
The above is a simplistic analysis, but it should give the idea. I would imagine, for example, that it would often be a good idea to have two turbines per field: you run both during peak load, and shut down one when load falls off. Then you have (6C+2T+2S)/6C and you've got a combined baseload+peaker (breakeven S<2T). This sort of CSP+TES should be compared to baseload+peakers, IMO.
Permalink
Michael Hoexter Posted 11:23 am
11 Sep 2008
That being said, Earl is right to point out the efficiencies involved in using thermal storage with solar thermal. You can use a smaller, less expensive steam turbine but use it at a much higher capacity. Or as Earl suggests, you could have two turbines, one that operates at peak capacity most of the time and one that scales up and down depending on the amount of stored heat or incident solar radiation (with solar thermal there is wide variation between the energy available at the winter and summer solstices).
From reliable sources, the figures I have cited for the first generation LCOE for solar thermal with storage are valid. I think it would be worth it to enter into this path even if it costed more money. The Spanish are paying $.35/kWh for solar thermal currently and Spain is not a wealthier country than our own.
Vakibs,
It appears you are giving the thorium folk a free ride while focusing all your skepticism on renewables. Thorium or other breeder reactors are still massive science and technology projects a decade or so in the future. I'm for exploring this option but they are no means as quickly and, I believe easily deployed as solar thermal electric with storage which are much simpler technologies. The very complexity of the nuclear fuel cycle has risks associated with it that are underestimated by the more vociferous advocates of thorium and U238 breeder reactors.
Furthermore these folk, at least as represented by the commenters to some of my previous posts, see a new generation of nuclear reactor as "Either/Or" with renewables like solar thermal with storage. They seem to want to squash interest in renewables, which I find to be a highly irresponsible position and move on their part if they are at all concerned about global warming. It doesn't have to be Either/Or.
Permalink
vakibs Posted 10:05 pm
11 Sep 2008
Breeder reactors aren't off the ground. The best India with all its massive resources claims it can do is 300MW of capacity by 2020. I'm sorry we don't have that long -- see Hansen et al.
Was this a joke or sarcasm ? India with all its massive resources.. I mean I am so speachless.
Quickfacts. More than 50% of the world's undernourished are in India. More than 50% of the world's uneducated children are in India. I mean, bogged by such issues, how much money can India invest in nuclear physics and space exploration ? With whatever peanuts we invested in, I am very proud to say India is doing superbly well.
But there is a monumental hypocrisy and hostility towards India at every step.
Since 1970, India has been the world's nuclear untouchable. For the crime of conducting nuclear tests, all trade of fissile material to India has been banned. India has very meagre indigenous Uranium resources and it has been doing the best use of them in the nuclear power program.
India has lots of Thorium, but Thorium is not naturally fissile. It first needs to be ignited with some neutrons. These neutrons come from naturally fissile material (either enriched U-235 or Plutonium), which India has none.
For the sake of USA, you can just dismantle the stockpile of nuclear weapons and use that as the fissile material. India's inventory of fissile material is close to zero. The world wants to keep it that way, because it is dead scared India will pile up nuclear bombs.
Coming to nuclear bombs, India has been pleading everyone in the world for complete nuclear disarmament. Nuclear bombs should be destroyed, nobody needs them anymore. It is only time before a terrorist steals it from some place and explodes them in your backyard. USA thinks it has some divine right to maintain a massive nuclear stockpile and preach everybody else about disarmament. This is utterly stupid. Because destroying all nuclear bombs forever, is first in the best interests of USA.
The recent nuclear deal that has been passed between India and USA allows for the sale of fissile material to India. This allows India to speeden up its nuclear power program and increase its fissile material inventory. With luck, India will be powered by 50% nuclear by 2030. This deal is still to be approved by the US senate, and there is a massive hostility to it, primarily from the democrats (such as Edward Markey and Howard Berman..most of these senators are directly funded by "clean"-coal money. Edward Markey has even an article on grist singing praises of clean coal.).
India is the only successful democracy in the third world. It has never been an aggressor, never started a war. It is a pluralistic and secular country with a thousand languages, cultures and religions. It has never proliferated nuclear weapons. It has a voluntary no-first-use policy and a voluntary moratorium on nuclear tests. The only thing India will never do is to sign the NPT - which discriminates the world into nuclear-haves and nuclear-have-nots. It will be the first country to sign a complete nuclear disarmament policy.
India is a rapidly developing country with growing energy needs. It is a densely populated country with not enough space for solar power deployment. In short, it is the ideal case for the utilization of nuclear power (And it has about 30% of the world's Thorium reserves). If not, it also possesses dangerously high coal reserves. Would you want India to burn coal the way China does ?
But there is no shortage of people trying their best to refuse India access to fissile material. Kept shackled like this, Indian breeder reactor program will be further delayed.
This is called giving breeder reactors a free ride !!?
And about Dr. Hansen, please watch this video, or read his most recent article. He is strongly in support of breeder reactors. He understands the dangers of coal and climate tipping points much better than anybody else.
And about your questions on Uranium mining, man.. we have enough "nuclear waste" right now which can power our world for about 300 years. There is no question of further Uranium mining.
But now that you asked, do you know the energy density of natural Uranium with breeder reactors ? It is around 24,000,000 million Joules/kilogram. The mining needs of Uranium/Thorium are minimal.
With liquid flouride thoirium reactors, we need 200 MegaTons of Thorium ore (0.5% Thorium) to be mined to produce a power of 1 Giga-Watt-Year of electricity. To produce an equivalent amount of electricity with light water reactors, we would have to mine 800,000 MegaTons of Uranium ore (0.2% Uranium). The equivalent number for coal will be 1000 times higher. I refer you to the presentation of Kirk Sorensen for more details on this technology.
The energy density argument for breeder reactors is a slam-dunk. It cannot get better than this, with the technology that we currently possess.
Finally, about the current state of the art in breeder reactors :
These reactors work. It is proven. Please try talking to any nuclear physicist who worked in this area. The only problem against breeder reactors is economics. Cheap Uranium prices are tempting nuclear power companies to continue with their archaic technology. It is as simple as that. And there is enormous opposition from the "clean"-coal companies. The only people who can change this status-quo is you, environmentalists. Demand a price on the longevity of nuclear waste. Breeder reactors will appear the very next instant.
The nuclear physicist community of India is unanimous in continuing towards the breeder program. It are unanimous in arriving there at the fastest speed possible. There is no disagreement there.
Think.. people !! By rejecting breeder reactors, you are rejecting your best friend in the fight against coal. It is not that renewables cannot handle the battle by themselves. They are strong enough. But, the stakes of the battle are too high to take this risk.
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 10:28 pm
11 Sep 2008
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=&q=india+nu ...
-David Ahlport
Permalink
vakibs Posted 10:32 pm
11 Sep 2008
Come on Michael..You know I am not doing that. I am just asking for the same kind of treatment. For égalité. If you criticize nuclear power on certain issues, you should apply the same criticism to renewable power.
Thorium or other breeder reactors are still massive science and technology projects a decade or so in the future. I'm for exploring this option but they are no means as quickly and, I believe easily deployed as solar thermal electric with storage which are much simpler technologies.
Going like this, you will lose the battle with coal, my friends. And I will be sorry to see you lose. As being discussed on another thread on grist, this battle is not easy. And even taking your pessimism of 10 years for granted, there will still be time to save the battle after 10 years. We should press full-speed-ahead with all the promising technologies, including breeder reactors. And breeder reactors are the best technology to complement solar and wind power. They will produce power when the wind is not blowing and when the sun is not shining. They will reduce your investment in massive transmission cables. They will prevent you from wasting your money laying solar panels in cloudy areas. They will give you the best value for your money.
The very complexity of the nuclear fuel cycle has risks associated with it that are underestimated by the more vociferous advocates of thorium and U238 breeder reactors.
It is like saying Einstein is wrong because you don't get understand his theory of relativity. It is like saying climate change is not happening because you have watched some videos on youtube which say so. There is no meat in your criticism.
The nuclear fuel cycle is complex, but we have brilliant scientists who have worked it all out. The risks associated with the technology are already addressed by the best statisticians we have. It is time we listened to scientists, and listened to them with patience !
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 10:36 pm
11 Sep 2008
Where as the problems with Thorium Reactors, and Breeder Reactors are so simple, as if they were already solved right now.
Naysaying for one, Handwaving for the other.
-David Ahlport
Permalink
vakibs Posted 10:51 pm
11 Sep 2008
When did I say that their problems are insurmountable ?
If you haven't heard me saying this already, I repeat : It is possible to power our society completely with renewable technologies (even at the level of the enormous energy waste that we do). We have enough resources and enough money to do this job.
Intermittent renewable power can be resolved by energy storage (which already exists and is getting better) and smart power grid.
Where do I stand in contradiction with you ?
What I ask for is a decent analysis on the costs of renewable power technologies. Not even the dollar costs (which I don't care). But purely the environmental costs : how much land we need (as worked out earlier on grist, USA needs about 40,000 sq km of land), how much water we need, how much metal needs to be mined etc..
If you are criticizing nuclear power (my preferred technology) on certain issues, apply the same criticism for renewable technologies as well.
I believe there are +s and -s for each technology (nuclear, biomass, CSP with storage, CSP without storage, wind, tidal ..) and that each of these technologies will find their niche areas in our society.
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
vakibs Posted 12:18 am
12 Sep 2008
But to say that massive resources need to be expended, then the next thing one would have to say is that governments are going to have to spend a lot of money. So the ultimate political problem will rear it's ugly head, namely, who pays? And while I think that governments could avoid too much "picking winners" by mostly providing the financing for these projects, at some point governments will probably wind up picking some "winners", as much as people don't like that idea. So I think that that is the reason, vakibs, you keep seeing the cost comparisons, because people don't want to go there, that is, go to government spending.
Jon, you hit the nail on the head. In my opinion, this is the most difficult problem against nuclear power deployment. It makes economic sense
to nationalize this industry, just as it makes economic sense to nationalize railways.
Both these moves will not go down well in USA, particularly, with the free-market people. So we have to think actively on ways to avoid nationalizing these industries.
One way would be to ask all the players in the market to stipulate to agreed standards. These standards have to be open standards and should be decided after rigorous debate. Good examples on this include the TCP/IP protocol for the internet, the size of railway lines, the communication codes of airtravel etc..
The design of nuclear reactors should be made to adhere to such standards. These standards can also be made to automatically ensure inherent safety.
Once such standardization is done, factory production of nuclear reactors can commence.
What we should not do is to redefine the standards every single month.
This is what has happened in the 1970s, and bankrupted several nuclear power companies.
Arriving at mature standards is a priority for the nuclear reactor industry, and I hope this can be done within 2 years.
So the ultimate political problem will rear it's ugly head, namely, who pays?
My answer to this question is very simple. Just ban the use of coal. The energy demand in USA is well understood. When people know that coal will be shut down, energy sector will become very lucrative for investment. There is enormous amount of wealth in the USA. Most of this wealth is currently getting invested in crappy stocks like real-estate and oil stocks. Non productive investments such as these are the real cause of America's economic woes. With a coal moratorium, the energy sector will drive the economic boom. There will be a huge manufacturing surge in solar power technologies. There will also be an enormous growth in nuclear power technologies. Things will be sorted out before we even blink our eyes.
All we need is the political will to push forward a coal moratorium.
Who will pick the winners ?
It will be the market which picks the winners. The job of the environmentalist community is to ensure that the market operates based on environmental costs in eco-dollars. We should demand the requisite prices (taxes ?) based on each of the environmental costs : GHG emissions, longevity of waste, mining effects, land use etc..
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 1:06 am
12 Sep 2008
I'm wondering about the lack of space in India. My very amateur understanding is that most of the population is pretty concentrated, mostly in an arc in the north -- I'm sorry I can't remember the names of the provinces. Anyway, aren't there large open spaces in parts of the country? Just asking.
I thought I read that China is going to build a breeder. The whole thing makes me very nervous, because I still don't know that there is an operational plant anywhere, they seem to be horrendously expensive, and they produce plutonium, no? So anyway, here's hoping governments become more involved.
Permalink
Russ Posted 1:27 am
12 Sep 2008
I remember reading somewhere, written by someone opposed to significant nuclear expansion in America (on economic grounds primarily), that:
Given that the market doesn't support significant domestic expansion, and the government has already awarded this industry far too much in subsidies;
that the nuke industry is going to fight to exist in some significantly expanded role;
that China (and perhaps others) are going to expand their own nuclear capacities regardless;
but they perhaps aren't technologically advanced enough to safely carry out the innovations they intend;
that the American industry should focus on reinventing itself as a consultant to China and anywhere else relevant, which can be profitable and improve safety at these foreign installations.
(The same piece also said, regarding the terrorist threat, that American plants aren't likely to be the problem, but Chinese plants, in a country of dubious and vacillating stability, may constitute a serious vulnerability.)
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 1:51 am
12 Sep 2008
I've seen other people go on and on about Thorium, but as far as I know, a thorium reactor has never been built either.
Permalink
vakibs Posted 2:37 am
12 Sep 2008
1.plutonium : is produced by 1970s era fuel reprocessing techniques. This is a dangerous element and there are valid concerns about it, but most of the hype is blown over the top. Fourth generation breeder reactors fall into two types (a) they don't produce plutonium (b) they produce it in a format unusable for making nuclear bombs
proliferation : making a nuclear bomb out of fissile material produced in a nuclear reactor is extremely difficult. nuclear bombs need a lot more enrichment of uranium/plutonium. this has to be done in a research facility. If such a facility exists, there is no need of a power plant at all to begin with.
demonstration of technology : I don't know about China. But India has a working thorium burner reactor. USA has built and run several breeder reactors for several months (including the most recent integral fast reactor at the ANL). What has not been demonstrated is the commercial viability of breeder reactors. (Try looking at the harshest critics of breeder reactors, including the recent Science article, MIT's report on nuclear power.. The wording is always the same). If this rings a bell to you, you will realize that this is the same problem with 90% of the technologies we discuss on this website.
Why are breeder reactors difficult to build ?
No, a very misleading question. Breeder reactors are easy to build. And several people have built them already.
Why are breeder reactors expensive ?
Because Uranium is dirt cheap !! This is the problem. A breeder reactor has lot more capital costs than a normal LWR. So nobody wants to lose money building them.
Why is land difficult to find in India ?
India's land is extremely sensitive due to its rich biodiversity. It is already under pressure due to intensive agriculture. Massive power requirements in the over-populated north or huge cities like Mumbai cannot be met by solar plants. The costs will be just too high.
@russ
Anybody opposed to expansion of nuclear power based on economic grounds is a fossil-fuel guy. Take what he says with a pinch of salt.
Renewable power can never be economically cheaper than nuclear power (read my earlier comment).
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
stopgreenpath Posted 3:22 am
12 Sep 2008
"To the chagrin of some renewable energy advocates, the larger size of the installation and the generators involved usually produces a significantly lower cost per unit energy relative to a small installation of the same technology, contradicting the "small is beautiful" philosophy that has become an unquestioned mantra in many quarters."
but how are you calculating the "costs per unit?" because we all know that it takes over 50 acres of permanent, total ecosystem death for every single MW of industrial wind. so, are you basically putting the "costs" of tens of millions of acres of our open spaces at 0? that's just an externalization, a la Big Fossils and Big Nukes, not a legitimate costing structure.
as for CSP cheerleaders, it uses over 10 times the acreage as small PV for the same output, not to mention billions of gallons of groundwater for cooling and rinsing, so you are guilty of the same fallacious externalization. and for anything built in "hot" deserts (like the Mojave), if you can't water cool, then you lose large percentages of output (10-15%), and the hotter it is, the more you lose (oops, doesn't that sound inverse to what we need for peaker power?).
both technologies would require a massive new roads system and giant, expensive transmission corridors, which will force thousands of people from their land and homes, and increase the likelihood of system failures and blackouts. are those costs factored into your per-kwh pricing? no? oh, right, because you want "the government" (aka us) to pay for that, after basically giving you millions of acres of federal land, too. not to mention the species-cide that accompanies these power plants - but direct death's just "collateral damage" in the war on indirect death, is it?
so you still think POU clean production that preserves, rather than kills the planet and affords all of US energy independence is an "unquestioned mantra," or do you think that maybe slavish devotion to giant, centralized Big Energy Monopolies which externalize the majority of costs (even with so-called "renewable" fuels) might be the "unquestioned mantra" we all should be refusing to repeat?
the greenest energy is that which you needn't ever produce.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 4:24 am
12 Sep 2008
Some how I seriously doubt that.
http://www.nirs.org/neconomics/nuclearsubsidies2008.pdf
http://greyfalcon.net/nuclear
http://greyfalcon.net/coalptc.png
-David Ahlport
Permalink
SkipMichael Posted 7:34 am
12 Sep 2008
I looked at my electric bill the other day and discovered this. My cost for electricity was very low, but the cost of "TRANSMISSION" fee was extremely high, even more than the electricity. So when I see this I wonder who is kidding who. This tells me no matter how much more we make "power" the cost of "Transmission" will remain the same or higher. We all need to be off the grid, make our own power and save the "transmission" cost.
Permalink
Russ Posted 9:49 pm
12 Sep 2008
@russ
Anybody opposed to expansion of nuclear power based on economic grounds is a fossil-fuel guy. Take what he says with a pinch of salt.
You don't have to be a fossil fuel shill to have this objection, and I can assure you I would not have cited a shill.
The fact is, although the economics is not one of my primary objections to nukes, if I was writing an anti-nuclear piece for publication for a general audience, that's the argument I'd emphasize.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 9:51 pm
12 Sep 2008
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&refer ...
Asked whether Obama may reduce his support for corn-based ethanol as president, spokesman Tommy Vietor referred to an April speech in Indiana:
``We have to recognize that corn-based ethanol is a transitional technology,'' the candidate said then.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:16 am
13 Sep 2008
It would be the only way to make it cost effective. But that would only be in the short term.
Unless that mass produced technology could neutralize waste by recycling it in the reactor, without expensive extraction and concentration, nuclear power can never be competitive with renewables and conservation.
Even then it would be necessary to transport the radioactive component to a facility at the end of it's useful life. That cost and the cost of the facility would still make it impossible to justify on a cost basis.
The compromise of allowing the industry to try a few experimental designs is mainly to finally prove it can't compete on cost in a safe manner. Basically to eliminate the very negative effect of nuclear industry lobbying on energy policy.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:23 am
13 Sep 2008
It runs on the very basic energy of planetary rotation and massive wind energy acting on the water surface. As it is underwater it gets around the NIMBY objections. And it protects ocean life from industrial scale fishing physically, no difficult treaties and their problematic enforcement are needed.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
solarwind Posted 7:50 am
11 Nov 2008
And btw, there is no way 1 MW of wind (which is under 1/3 of the preferred size of turbines nowadays) causes "perminant, total ecosystem death". That's orders of magnitudes wrong. Wow.
You claim also that PV has higher energy density than CSP. Again, way wrong. PV is 8-12 acres/MW, and CSP is 4-6 acres/MW(Ausra's claiming 2.7). Are you assuming "small PV" would be roof mounted? Well, then there'd be no new required land (zero) and thus you wouldn't be able to come up with a fraction in that case either.
Finally, there's a 7-8% increase in LCOE with dry cooling for CSP. So rather than $.15/kWh, you'd be paying ~ %.16/kWh (extra cent). I have a monthly bill of ~ 250kWh...I'll pay $2.50 extra no sweat.
Permalink