Talk:Economics of new nuclear power plants/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Talk:Economics of new nuclear power plants

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2 →

Wind economics

The 2004 UK study seems pretty recent to me. If someone has a calculation of wind power costs (including storage or backup power costs) based on newer wind technology, we'll add it in. Excluding a result just because you don't like it is not encyclopedic. Simesa 20:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Attribution

I appreciate that this is a new article, but am concerned about the issue of attribution. It is important that we adequately cite appropriate sources with a controversial topic, yet there are ten paragraphs in this article which have no inline citations. And of the sources given in the Reference list only five are dated 2006 or 2007. Earlier references surely have limited relevance for the topic of new nuclear power plants. So I'm adding an Unreferenced tag to alert readers. -- Johnfos 07:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Found a great source for capital costs and construction schedules. Simesa 08:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Economics

Ok, added in a study referenced in wind power that has a terrible number for nuclear. Still, it's a recent study from a reputable source, so it goes in. Will have to revise text in nuclear power now. Simesa 19:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW, that's [1], Chapter 6, page 66. Simesa 19:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Added to the first line: "Two of the Japanese plants were brought in under budget and ahead of schedule". DavidMIA 00:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)davidMIA

Really guys, this isnt NPOV: I can see nothing in the article about dismantling costs. I hear that in the UK, Dungeness is being decommissioned and the cost is huge. 100 years of carting 100,000 tons per year of shingle to prevent coastal erosion damaging it before it can be entered.

Does anyone know how much and how this is added to the cost of the electricity produced? User: PaulSteed

What I found was here: Decommissioning nuclear facilities. The figures given are not very exact. From the NRC web site, "the NRC requires plant owners to set aside money when the plant is still operating to pay for the future shutdown costs." http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/students/decommissioning.html Note that is information for students (kids) but it should still be accurate, they just don't give exact figures, just a rough estimate of $300 million or more. Fanra 18:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I added a Decommissioning section. Fanra 18:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Adding POV tag

I appreciate that this is a new article, but am concerned that out-of-date and ethnocentric material is being included, particularly in the "Comparisons with other power sources" section. What can a 1997 study (Fritsche) possibly tell us about the "Economics of new nuclear power plants"? Or a 2004 study that only talked about the UK? I am not claiming that the information contained in these sources is incorrect, just that the sources are out-of-date and irrelevant to the topic.

If the title of this article was simply "Economics of nuclear power", I could see some relevance in these sources. But it is not and I cannot see their relevance to the contemporary situation. As you know, the economics of new power plants is a very dynamic area and things change very quickly.

It is not simply a case of leaving these sources in the article until better studies can be found. Neither of these sources are relevant to the topic at hand and so they should be deleted. To report on irrelevant sources in a WP article is not a neutral thing to do and so, reluctantly, I'm adding a POV tag to the section and a Globalize tag to the article as a whole. -- Johnfos 21:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Three of the sources are from 2004, 2005 and 2006 (pretty recent), and are each highly relevant. They're by diverse government agencies with no axe to grind. What they are not is rabidly pro-wind power. I vote against the POV tag. Simesa 22:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me assure you that there is nothing personal in adding these tags. Like other people I am simply trying to improve the article. In terms of your "pro-wind" comment, I should say that I have never worked for any renewable energy company, including wind, and I have never even been to a wind farm. I don't even have a solar water heater on the roof. I'm just an average person reporting on what I read. -- Johnfos 22:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Obviously the article has lots of references. Use ^{[citation needed]} to indicate exactly what you find lacking. Also, explain the globalize template.Ultramarine 23:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

In terms of what is lacking, I think so far an understanding of the dynamic nature of the comparative economics of power plants is missing in this article. As I say, I'm no expert, and I have limited time to come up to speed, but from what I've read things have changed dramatically since 2004. I'm reluctant to use wind again as an example, but it will serve to illustrate.

The Wind power article says that globally, wind power generation capacity more than quadrupled between 2004 and 2006. And costs are coming down...

"Although the cost varies between different countries, the trend everywhere is the same - wind energy is getting cheaper. The cost is coming down for various reasons. The turbines themselves are getting cheaper as technology improves and the components can be made more economically. The productivity of these newer designs is also better, so more electricity is produced from more cost-effective turbines. There is also a trend towards larger machines. This reduces infrastructure costs, as fewer turbines are needed for the same output.

The cost of financing is also falling as lenders gain confidence in the technology. Wind power should become even more competitive as the cost of using conventional energy technologies rises."[2]

So I ask again: What can a 1997 study (Fritsche) possibly tell us about the comparative economics of new power plants? Or a 2004 study that only talked about the UK?

The use of material that is not up-to-date skews and confuses the article, and so this is not a neutral presentation. And it is not relevant to the topic at hand.

If we really want to include the two sources mentioned, then the title of the article should be changed to something like "Economics of Nuclear Power".

As for the Globalize tag, I think a world view is so far lacking in this article. I contributed some material which suggested that India and China were important growth areas for nuclear power, yet they are discussed very little in the article. Have I used the Globalize tag inappropriately? -- Johnfos 00:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the 1997 study doesn't belong - it has glaring deficiencies. It was my fault for bringing it over, and I deleted it. We should examine the other studies to see if they assumed different interest rates for the different power sources. I was unable to find a cost number for the Russian VVERs, but will keep looking. Simesa 01:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Found [3] "Advanced Nuclear Power Reactors" (March 2007). The cost for a new VVER-1200 is quoted as $1200 per kWe for a 50 year life (which is short of the 60 offered by other plants) and a hoped-for capacity factor of 90%. This is marginally competitive. Simesa 01:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Incorporated the above into the article. Also found [4], which repeats the above. The $1200/kWe cost might be based on construction in Russia. Also, the 54-month construction time may be seen by some as too long. It does have passive safety features. Simesa 02:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Just removed the POV tag. Sorry if I upset anyone. The topic of this article is not an easy one to come to, but I think if we all keep working at it, then we should get a good result. -- Johnfos 08:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Wind Power

I'm reverting the addition of three paragraphs on wind power - they're in the comparisons section, but don't provide any new numbers. We already say "Some renewable energy sources are in their infancy: wind power and solar power, while being employed now, are earlier in their development than nuclear." This lengthy qualitative discussion belongs over in wind power. Simesa 13:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This is the material that was removed:

This 2004 UK study calls wind power "intermittent", yet this is a misnomer, as it implies an ‘all or nothing’ delivery of energy,[5] and even nuclear plants do not operate for 100% of the time.[6] Moreover, the economics of wind power have improved in recent years:

The cost of financing is also falling as lenders gain confidence in the technology. Wind power should become even more competitive as the cost of using conventional energy technologies rises."[7]

-- Johnfos 08:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

no real information

This article is grossly uninformitive and seems to dodge the issue. It is obviouse from reasding the article that a nuclear plant when in operation is cheaper then any other source but that the initial costs make it impractical but then the real question which this article completly fails to adress is how much does a nuclear plant cost? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.126.142.26 (talk) 20:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

I'm sorry, I didn't mean for it not to be said. For the first ESBWR, $1200 x 1560 = around $1.9 billion "overnight capital cost" (that is, without interest charges). For an average AP1000, $1050 x 1117 = around $1.2 billion "overnight capital cost". Simesa 21:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Other studies

WNA mentions some other studies here: [8]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ultramarine (talk • contribs) 22:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

Revert

First of all, according to Intermittent power source Wind Power IS Intermittent.

Second Wind power says "In 2004, wind energy cost one-fifth of what it did in the 1980s, and some expected that downward trend to continue as larger multi-megawatt turbines are mass-produced.[5] However, installation costs have increased significantly in 2005 and 2006, and according to the major U.S. wind industry trade group, now average over 1600 U.S. dollars per kilowatt,[6] compared to $1200/kW just a few years before. A British Wind Energy Association report gives an average generation cost of onshore wind power of around 3.2 pence per kilowatt hour (2005).[7]" -- "Some expected"? The source [5] given is the feelings of a CEO of a green power marketing firm! I'm amazed that even Wind Power used that as a reference. If you want to quote that the cost is declining, please find a reputable source. Simesa 07:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

This is the text which was removed the second time:

"This 2004 UK study calls wind power "intermittent", yet this is a misnomer, as it implies an ‘all or nothing’ delivery of energy,[9] and even nuclear plants do not operate for 100% of the time.[10] Moreover, the economics of wind power have improved in recent years."[11] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johnfos (talk • contribs) 08:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

Response after being twice reverted

Firstly, let me say that I appreciate that you have opened up the discussion here, rather than simply reverting without discussion. I'm sure if we talk things through we will get a better outcome.

Intermittency

Intermittency is used as a shorthand, even by the Wind Energy Associations, but as they say it is not an accurate description because it implies on and off switching. The Intermittent power sources article says: "...the total electricity generated from a large-scale array of dispersed wind farms, located in different wind regimes, cannot be accurately described as intermittent."[12] [13] And there is a mountain of literature that discusses this, and my reference here on this point is this one.[14]

This assumes that wind power only contribues a relatively small share of total energy, like under 20%. There will be power transmission losses in cables, espically in small cables from many wind turbines over wide areas distant from energy consumption.Ultramarine 11:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

NPOV is important

I think one of the great things about WP is that it encourages us to present differing views, as part of the NPOV policy, so long as they are backed up by verifiable sources. So it's fine for a particular study to say that wind is intermittent, but then it is good to expand this with relevant discussion of the point, especially in fledgling articles where there is plenty of space. If it is felt that there is for some reason not room to have a balanced discussion then perhaps the original point should be taken out. I really can't see why at least a more few lines and a few references can't be included to flesh out this comparative discussion. As far as I can see this material would provide a useful transition between the 2004 study paragraph and the 2006 study paragraph, and helps to explain why comparative wind economics seem better in the 2006 study. There are many sources, but probably not many nuclear industry sources, which show that the cost of wind power has come down in recent years.

I'm sorry, I thought it was clear that 2006 US study assumed no backup power costs, as the 2004 UK study did. And we know that utilities today are buying $1100/MWe nuclear plants, not $1744/MWe ones. Maybe the 2007 study will return to earth. [15] p.73 Simesa 19:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I had a quick glance at this page and immediately felt quite uncomfortable. There are many POV statements, and I agree that there is room for differing statements, but then they have to be clearly labelled. I'm just asking, how can you cite WNA? They are of course POV, I think they wouldn't even deny themselves. Thus referring to their studies is plain rubbish. Please remove the according quotes. 217.162.207.253 19:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Qualitative discussion is important

I feel we need to explain these studies much more and present the assumptions on which they are based. And qualitative discussion of cost trends is very relevant. To present the quantative results on there own is simply not that useful as this is not a technical report. Again, I think the article needs to be fleshed out a lot and I am trying to help with that.

Hmmmm... well, lets see what the sources say. Simesa 19:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Carbon dioxide emissions

I notice there is a statement in the 2004 study paragraph which says that nuclear power "produces negligible amounts of CO2". I'm no expert but would have thought that there were some differing views on this and that they should be acknowledged so as to achieve a NPOV.

During operation, nuclear plants produce carbon dioxide only when the Emergency Diesel Generators are tested. Mining is about 4% of the equivalent mining for coal (from a back of the envelope calculation). Enrichment takes a lot of power (that will change in about 5 years). I've seen sources and will look some up. Simesa 19:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Three generations of renewables

In terms of renewable energy technologies being in their "infancy", this is an over-generalisation, and it is an issue that really needs to be expanded. If there is to be some comparison between nuclear and renewables, readers need to be clear about what is meant by wind power and solar power and to what extent they have been commercialized. The International Energy Agency has said that there are three generations of renewables, dating back more than a hundred years (see Renewable energy commercialization). Again, the situation is a bit more complex than described, and we have room in the comparative economics section of this article to explore that.

We should probably have a one-liner in this article, and something more in the proposed article on comparative economics. We have to make some statement about future expectations. For example, there are proposals to build 350-foot towers to catch the faster winds. Simesa 19:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Construction delays, Cost overruns, and Difficulties with financing

Unfortunately, these have been important economic issues in the past for nuclear power (see, for example, Seabrook Station Nuclear Power Plant) and they deserve more attention in this article, especially in relation to the power plant that is presently behind schedule in Finland.

This is a valid point. In the U.S. construction delays were largely due to increased regulation, and there is now some protection against that for the first six plants, but it could still be a factor. The Finland EPR is FOAKE (First Of A Kind Engineering) but so will be the first AP1000 and ESBWR. [16] credits Design Flaws, Two-Hurdle Licensing, and Non-uniform Designs for most of the delays. We should find more sources and add text on this. Simesa 19:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Jargon

Unfortunately, I think there is a tendency towards specialist technical language (jargon) in this article. I know, Simesa, that you are a nuclear engineer and so this is no problem for you, but it will be an issue for some readers.

For example, in the second paragraph reference is made to "ABWRs", yet the term has not been explained previously. I also haven't found where "overnight capital cost" and "total overnight cost" are explained. Are they the same thing?

My mistake - article grew too fast. Also "It is referred to as the overnight cost because it can be thought of as the amount of money that would be required to build the plant if the construction could be done instantaneously, or “overnight”, i.e., without incurring any interest during construction." [17] At a 10% interest rate with a 45 month construction schedule and linear expenditures, interest adds 21% to the cost of the plant (I figured that out using Excel). The total overnight cost used in the study added significant uncertainties on top of the overnight capital cost. Simesa 18:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to complement you guys on your talk page discussions. Looks like you are working out your differences in a positive manner. I do note the request for a 3rd opinion but to this point you guys have done well. In connection with the jargon, you might consider Manual of Style for some direction.

Summary

I think that there are a great many ways in which this article can be expanded and improved and have been trying to help. A key consideration is to maintain a NPOV and to attribute sources used.

Over-generalisations about wind is "intermittent", renewables are in their "infancy", "negligible" amounts of CO2 emissions, are POV as far as I can see. The situation is more complex than this and should be explained more. Where there are areas of obvious disagreement in the literature, these should be pointed out and referenced.

Issues such as construction delays, cost overruns, and difficulties with financing deserve more attention. Jargon should be avoided.

-- Johnfos 08:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Comparisons Article

It was suggested in Wind power that there be one unified article for the "Comparisons with other power sources" section. How do you all feel about it? Simesa 05:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I am very much in favor! I would like to see all modes of energy production compared in one place. Off the top of my head, the important comparative statistics are: EROEI, initial cost, time to construct, cost per unit of energy output, carbon emissions, and externalities. Externalities will require a lot of assumptions, and that runs the risk of a POV tag, but I think the extra work required to reflect all common points of view will be greatly appreciated by all parties. I will be happy to contribute to such an article. — Aetheling 14:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

We need a title. "Economic comparisons of electricity sources"? Simesa 18:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

If you want to go ahead and create such an article, go ahead. However, even if created, some discussion about the subject needs to remain here, at least a summary with the link to the other article. Fanra 04:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

India nuclear costs vs. coal

I haven't read this yet, but the summary is on page 1770 (#8 of 11 pages). [18] The last sentence is "(India's small PHWR) Nuclear power plants, therefore, have been and remain a costlier way of trying to address India’s electricity needs than coal-based thermal plants." Simesa 00:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised at this. The new Kaiga 3 reactor that came onstream in India in February this year was constructed at a remarkably low cost [19] $22.33 per installed kw is astonishing. Perhaps somebody can check the veracity of this a put it in the main article.

Colin 21:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Wind power factor for new article

Found an interesting source: a "good" wind site gives you a 30%-to-35% capacity factor (page 8). Cost comparisons are on page 28. [20] BTW, I keep seeing that utilities will build no more than 20% wind power into their system, probably because of spinning reserve requirements. Simesa 01:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Comparisons with other power sources

The last sentence in this section reads as follows:

Current nuclear reactors return around 40-60 times the invested energy when using life cycle analysis. This is better than coal, natural gas, and current renewables except hydropower.

The source for this claim is given in a footnote as: "Energy Analysis of Power Systems". Information and Issue Briefs. World Nuclear Association (2006).

If you actually read this paper, as I have done, you will see that this statement is made nowhere in the paper. It was derived indirectly from figures in Table 2: Life Cycle Energy Ratios for Various Technologies. The last column gives "Input as a percent of lifetime output", which for nuclear power (centrifuge enrichment) ranges from 1.7% to 2.3%. To convert these numbers into a ratio of energy output to energy input, one must take the reciprocal: 100 / 1.7 = 58.8, and 100 / 2.3 = 43.5. Whoever contributed this sentence must have done this calculation, and then rounded these numbers to 60 and 40, respectively. This is the origin of the "40-60" range in the original sentence.

Now, I think that when Wikipedia is presenting a comparison between power sources, then the actual figures for each power source should be given. Therefore, I computed the range of output-to-input ratios from the rest of the table, just as the original author did. Here is my result, expressed a little more carefully than last time:

Over their entire lifetimes, current nuclear reactors return between 43 and 58 times their invested energy, depending on the type of reactor. This is better than coal (16 to 34 times), natural gas (5 to 26), and solar photovoltaic (4 to 12), but not better than hydropower (43 to 200) and wind (6 to 77).

In crafting this sentence, I took great care to say "not better than", which is correct, rather than "worse than", which is not correct. We are comparing ranges, not individual numbers, and when those ranges overlap — as they do here — then it is not possible to say definitively that one form of power is better or worse than the other.

This is the basis for my edit of this last sentence, which was reverted by Ultramarine (talk · contribs). I am certain that my reasoning is sound, but I am willing to submit to whatever consensus opinion evolves here. Meanwhile, I have re-edited the sentence. —Aetheling 04:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that wind does not compete with any on demand power. It's apples and oranges. Wind will not compete when it's power *fluxuates* contantly, and is not an reliable source of power. It can only supplement power if the grid will back it. Thus, the French nuclear system "subsidizes" the Dutch and German wind farms because it anchors the whole of the European Grid. The economics of nuclear are well known (most are very profitable now). Costs are waht ever they are when they parallel to the system after they go critical. Is "basically 100%" 24/7 365. US nuclear power was 90% available at full load in 2005. For every megawatt of wind you need to have an equal amount of on demand power. This is why Germany and Holland and Denmark are not going past 20 to 30% of their grid capacity with wind.

So that, a paricular dollar cost for kWh installed for nuclear is "verifiable" based on past performance, wind is simply not for the same dollar. You get more power by a factor 3 out of nuclear than you would invested for a dollar of wind.

216.203.27.99 00:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)David Walters

He has a point here, and it should be added to the article in some way. A "good" wind site has been defined as one with a 35% capacity factor, and utilities don't like to have to have lots of "spinning reserve". Simesa 00:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

These statements confuse several issues. First, capacity factor: the capacity factor of all generating sources is less than 100% (average power output over a given period). As noted, nuclear is very high; gas and peaking plants will be much lower (not intended to be used all the time); hydro depends on intended usage (peaking or base) and plant design/storage capacity. This is not an enormous problem - a wind farm is expected to operate in this way, with some variation between years, and that capacity figure is included in cost calculations. As would downtime and maintenance/refuelling for any plant, or expected utilisation for those not used for full-time baseload.

Second, intermittency: it is simply not true that an equal amount of on demand power is needed: the actual calculation is statistically reliable generation during periods of peak demand, which is always higher than nil. And the benefit to having "backup" is shared between all sources that may at some point be offline; at low penetrations, the amount of additional reserve required due to wind is quite low. As a side note, the France/Germany subsidy comment doesn't hold water - because nuclear output can't be easily lowered, it is actually a poor source for backup - unless that power was somehow going to be spilled or temporarily stored. (In the large European grid, however, there is still some benefit - may allow other e.g. German thermal plant to shutdown). More accurate is that hydropower in Norway/Sweden is an excellent complement ('subsidise' here is loaded terminology) since it is good for peaking.

Finally, 20% of total power generation is a lot by most standards (hydro worldwide is 6%?). Wind's usefulness is partly to displace fossil fuel sources and hence pollution. If 20% of total power generation across many countries from wind were achieved, the pollution displaced would be substantial (specifics depending on the other generating sources); since only about three-four countries are anywhere near that level, it's hardly a "problem." There are limits to the amount one would use of any generating source (nuclear, for example, rarely above minimum firm demand). Granted, getting above that level of generation may be difficult, but that hardly means more should not be done or that the contribution to power generation would not be substantial.--Gregalton 04:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

At the moment, we say:

Many renewables are intermittent and require some form of back-up power or storage, which increases their price when accounted for. "Good" (but not "world class") on-shore wind power sites have up to 35% capacity factor, and the actual electrical output is about 86% of that.[19]

Which is from a good recent source. I thought the number was low enough to be notable. (The Wind Power article should say it.)

I wasn't in the corporate Operations Department with the dispatchers, so I can't make any statements as to how much spinning reserve they require. Statistics would tell us that windless days are a definite possibility.

I'm not arguing for or against wind. My personal view is that we should proceed at full speed with wind to whatever the grid can stand without risking brownouts when the wind suddenly dies.

I'm not arguing for or against nuclear either: my observation is, as it has been since 1978, is that coal pollutes too much and nuclear is the most viable replacement -- but nuclear has to stand or fall on its own. If I see something unfavorable to nuclear that needs saying, I'll put it in here.

It comes down to sources. If you can find a reputable source saying something notable, we should get it in somewhere. Simesa 06:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

There are numerous sources at both wind power and intermittent power source. I'm not trying to "push" wind either, but the comments above (not by you) are (IMHO) judgmental and incorrect. The point about capacity factor and output dollar-for-dollar just does not hold up - estimates for the cost of wind power include the capacity factor. It is simply false that everyone estimating the cost of wind forgot to take the capacity figure into account - that is a key input, just as expected maintenance time and the like are for nuclear or (indeed) any other generating source. (More complex estimates also attempt to account for the timing and relative value of energy - i.e., production at peak demand or not).

My point about capacity figure in relation to intermittency is that they are entirely different issues - the 35% capacity figure is reasonable (possibly even high, depending on location). Due to the power output curve (output grows exponentially with wind speed), median output will probably be even lower - perhaps 20%, but I don't have a figure for this at hand.

As for the amount of reserve required, there are numerous studies at intermittent power sources. Short summation is: at low levels of wind (e.g. less than 5% nominal wind capacity to peak demand), incremental reserve requirement is very low, for very low penetration probably irrelevant (effect swamped by other system issues). At medium levels (say, up to 20%), should be manageable with few system changes/not much additional reserve for most larger grids with some interconnection, depending on some issues like mix of other generation (e.g. hydro with some storage capacity compensates well). At much higher penetrations - like e.g. Denmark/NW Germany - correlation between wind speed at different sites, cost of additional reserve, transmission issues, ability to forecast well, use of demand response, maneuverability of other generating capacity, etc., become more important. Although wind may not blow, this is fairly rare for wind generation that has some geographic distribution - there are sources/projections for this as well. And yes, there are probably penetration levels at which further capacity increase would not be the most efficient, at least for a given system profile/grid, and so other generation types may be preferred.

So, to say it is "not reliable" or can only be used to "supplement" is judgmental. Neither would it be neutral to say that nuclear is not useful since it cannot be easily increased/decreased with demand, or that peaking gas plants are only used to "supplement" base power during periods of peak demand.

One final point: there is a comment above that "most nuclear is very profitable now." I would argue this is not very meaningful, since most plants are not new (or I didn't understand the point): any generating source that has high up-front costs and low maintenance/fuel costs (low or zero marginal costs) should be profitable as long as the price paid is positive (in business/finance terms, operational profit is high); it doesn't necessarily account for whether the project itself is profitable over its entire life. This would be true for (most) nuclear, wind and hydro, and much coal as well. Unfortunately, doesn't tell you much about the economics of new plants, the ostensible subject of the article.--Gregalton 08:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

We seem to have digressed from an EROEI (energy returned on energy invested) comparison to a cost comparison, with variability thrown in as third basis of comparison. Now back when I studied operations research, about a million years ago, this was known as a multicriteria comparison. Economists have ways of dealing with these things, but they are complicated mathematically and unsuitable for this article. When there are two distinct bases for comparison, say cost and EROEI, then a graphical approach can communicate very effectively. The two axes are, of course, cost and EROEI, and each type of power generation plant would be a dot on the graph. Since we actually are dealing here with ranges, the dots would be better represented by ellipses. This is a very common way of presenting multicriteria comparisons. Meanwhile, all arguments about which is the "correct" basis of comparison will lead us nowhere: they are all informative. — Aetheling 13:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly how is EROEI of interest to anyone as long as it is greater than 1?Ultramarine 14:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: Found [21] which has a very nice table showing the results of 5 comparative studies, and [22] which offers many Life Cycle Analysis calculations of energy invested as a % of energy generated. But though this latter is a March, 2006 summary the usual problems apply -- an 80% lifetime capacity factor is far too low, and today's plant offering last a minimum of 60 years not 40. Simesa 01:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the capacity comment for wind and tightened the language - the capacity comment (even though sourced) wasn't really relevant, or at least not in current form. I also removed the "infancy" line - it just wasn't specific enough. (Technology curve? Economies of scale? Solar is colicky?)--Gregalton 07:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Third Option response

Alright, first let me start by restating the controversy as best as I understand it from the discussion here and the edits made. If I'm correct it seems that the locus of the conflict comes down to the specific numbers used in some comparisons, what additional data needs to be included and what, if any, comparisons might be unduely weighting one side of the argument or another.

It appears to me as if many of the problems could be solved by a strict application of data directly from secondary sources, saving us analysis (it's been done for us in a secondary source) or by careful application of primary scholarly sources. The problem of inconsistancy may arise, but could be solved through stating both the high and low (per NPOV requirements) and sourcing them properly.

As to what's good material for inclusion, I don't have as much of a solution there, it would appear to me that focusing the article strictly on the economics of new nuclear power generators, without regard to comparisons, would solve a possible dispute, but I can also see this being suboptimal from an information standpoint. Perhaps refocusing the article on it's core issues, and putting in less information, perhaps a line or two, about wind power could solve that dispute? Likewise, liberal use of wikilinks and qualitative data from primary sources would prevent any judgements from having to be made. I'd like to hear your thoughts on these possible solutions, or any other you've thought of. I also have to say, for all the controversies I've stepped into (unwillingly or willingly) you guys are remarkably civil as of now, which is refreshing. Wintermut3 06:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Uncertainty in estimates / overruns

As a general comment on the article for the editors who know far more about it than me, there is currently very little on cost overruns, mistaken estimates about service life, etc. Since there are many documented cases of this, it really should be addressed in more detail. There is a fair amount of information about how changes to electricity markets can affect the cost of risk for nuclear, but not very much addressing one of the key issues for risk: estimates in the past about cost and service assumptions have often been dramatically wrong, and this higher risk translates into a higher cost of capital. The extent of government involvement in the sector also needs noting - if I'm mot mistaken, the majority of nuclear plants worldwide are government-owned (France alone would skew the figures).--Gregalton 07:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The Japanese just built two ABWRs under budget and ahead of schedule, so it can be done. Cost overruns in the U.S. were largely due to regulatory delays - something the government is actually insuring the first six plants against. The NRC is well-prepared for the next plants, unlike having to play catch-up as it did in the 1970s. Also, plant designs will now have NRC Final Design Approval before the customer even buys them, and utilities are insisting on CCOLs - Combined Construction and Operating Licenses, which would make it impossible for the NRC to suddenly write new requirements and thus hold up construction. I'd say the U.S. is in good shape to avoid cost overruns, the Japanese have no problem with them, and only the French seem to be having difficulties.

The Generation I reactors did have short lives, but the Generation II reactors are mostly still operating (see List of nuclear reactors). Originally licensed for 40 year lives, many of the Generation II and III reactors in the U.S. are being re-licensed for 60 years (and a number have had power uprates as well) - there's quite a good experience base on this. [23] I'd say that the 60-year lifetimes advertised for the Generation III+ reactors is not only a safe bet, but probably also extendable by relicensing at some point in the future.

Government ownership. Well, I seem to see that all the plants in the U.S., Canada, Mexico, Germany, Spain, Taiwan and Japan (except Monju) are owned by companies. Russia, China, India and France stand out, but nothing in this article applies to Russia or China anyway and India is iffy since it is a nuclear pariah. This doesn't seem to be a dominant theme in the First World.

In sum, I'd note that the Finnish EPR is behind schedule but that cost overruns are not expected to be anything like they were in the past, that 60 year plant lifetimes are already expected of less-well-designed plants, and that nuclear power has been chosen by companies as well as governments. I'll try to write some words on the first topic, but the other two would just take up space to no purpose. Simesa 09:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the points. I still think that this should be pointed out in the article more as a significant factor in the cost of capital/economics - "it can be done" is not that reassuring from a business standpoint. Put another way, any estimate of cost is going to have some error, but the error seems to have consistently been towards the underestimation of project cost for most of the industry's history. And cost underruns have been far less significant in absolute terms (I guess they can't go to zero).

I understand your point about the 60 year lifespans, although I'd point out that beyond 30 years, any discounting rate used (even government debt rate) is likely to make the additional output after the 30/40 year point essentially irrelevant from a financial standpoint. Just one of those oddities of the mathematics of finance. This same point makes any execution/operation risk at the front end on the cost side very costly, since the payback period is so long. At any rate, I reiterate that this uncertainty and the history of delays/cost overruns strikes me as far more important than the deregulation of electricity and some other points mentioned in the article in terms of the economics.

Finally, I'd note that all of the Canadian plants were built, owned and operated at the beginning by government-owned entities, and most (all but one?) still are owned by them (and this last case is not as straightforward as a simple privatisation). I can't comment in depth on the other countries or ones on the list, but I suspect many have a government or quasi-government background for some of these countries. In most cases that I'm aware of, government (even when ownership is not direct) has been extremely central. If the list of countries were longer, the situation might look a bit different (Sweden? UK? Romania? South Korea? etc).--Gregalton 10:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The main economic point about the deregulation/privatisation of electricity is the higher discount rate used in finance evaluation. Gov't/monopoly-company funding used discount rates around 5% to 8% (and many recent pro-nuclear costing studies still use this range). But potential private financiers of nuclear use discount rates of 10% to 15% - they aim for an investment recovery period of 25 years or less. You're dead right about the mathematics of finance, with a 10% discount rate an 18 months delay devalues all future electricity revenue by 14.5% (plus the extra direct costs of the delay), but electricity produced 40 years in the future only has 1.5% of current value, so extending life to 60 years has a small current benefit. The power of compound interest! Using a 25 year time horizon makes a lot of sense: if eg the next generation of nuclear power is a lot cheaper, than in 25 years the current generation might not be economic if they were still paying off capital, so the investors might never get a good return for the risk. But a 25-year horizon wrecks the economics of the current generation. Rwendland 15:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your points. I'm not disagreeing about the deregulation issue, I just think that it's no more important to the economics of nuclear than (for example) cost overruns, which has (at present) a not prominent position in the current article. And while the government involvement issue may seem obscure, government can basically borrow at 5%, the private sector at substantially higher rates. Given the other issues, this may be more important than 40 vs 60 years.--Gregalton 19:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I broke out the construction delay wording and made it explicit. Uncertainty in plant lifetimes would require a cite about how Generation II plants have fared (Generation I contains just too many oddball plants to be able to make a statement). I have no idea where a discussion of government-ownership vs. private ownership would wind up -- in general, I prefer private ownership with very strong government oversight, but that's just my opinion. I'd like to see some proposed text on this. Simesa 01:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Prime Rate this week, according to the Wall Street Journal, is 8.25%. [24] Utilities tend to be able to borrow at prime because (1) they have a steady and predictable income stream and (2) they have highly-salable assets for collateral. However, I haven't yet found a cite for this, so I'm not putting it in yet. In any event the point is moot - utilities do their own evaluations in-house before choosing a power source. Simesa 22:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Subsidies and waste

Not mentioned in subsidies is Insurance. The Insurance section above it mentions the Price-Anderson Act but the Subsidies section doesn't mention that this is a subsidy. The article on the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act says, "According to the United States Public Interest Research Group the value of this "potential subsidy" to the nuclear industry has been estimated at between $366 million and $3.5 billion annually, or $3.5 million to $33 million per reactor per year. A more recent analysis by economists places the value at $2.3 million per reactor-year or $237 million annually."

Also not mentioned is "The Act provides no fault liability for reactor operators, and injured victims are precluded from directly suing vendors or manufacturers responsible for an accident.", this is a subsidy also.

Why? Because without this law, costs would be higher as private insurers would charge much more.

The Radiation Exposure Compensation Act is also a subsidy. Uranium has to be mined and enriched. I would guess that governments fund part of that as well.

In addition, every area around a plant needs to have evacuation plans and emergency services, who pays for those? Also costing money are Public hearings, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ($917 million, FY 2008 Request, The FY 2008 budget is offset by $765 million from fees assessed to NRC licensees, resulting in a net appropriation of $151.6 million.), etc.

Waste - The article barely mentions the cost of dealing with the waste. For the United States, Yucca Mountain will cost expected to be between 50 and 100 billion dollars. The cost to continue storing nuclear waste at their respective plants though is significantly greater, estimated to be 200 to 400 billion dollars. The cost of Yucca does not include the massive costs of transporting the waste and the security (provided by the US government) needed during transport. Fanra 20:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Price-Anderson is fairly discussed under Insurance. There are those who say Price-Anderson is not a subsidy, since it has so far cost the taxpayers nothing, so it is really better dealt with in the Insurance section which after all immediately precedes the Subsidies section.

Your second point is not a subsidy, as the victims can sue the government and the pooled funds would be used to pay for pursuing those lawsuits.

Insurance costs would not be higher, as companies are required to purchase all the insurance there is.

I don't think you can call the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act a subsidy, as there is no longer any uranium mining in the U.S.

Licensees (those who own and/or operate facilities) pay taxes like everyone else. If you had lived near plants as I have, you would know that those areas can afford magnificient services due to the taxes paid by the plants. One county had so much money it bought a ski slope as an investment.

The utilities pay so much per kwhr into a fund for disposal of the spent fuel. Storage on site is being paid for by the utilities, although some have successfully sued the U.S. government. Shipping is on the utility. Local government agencies are notified, but government security personnel are not used on civilian shipments.

I hope this clears up some of your concerns. Simesa 03:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Since as of date the Price-Anderson Act has not had to pay for damages, I would agree with most of your points. It is a subsidy regardless of your points because, as I said, if it didn't exist insurance costs would be higher. Companies might be required to purchase all the insurance there is but I have no doubt that without the government providing a safety net the insurance companies would charge higher premiums. But that point is moot because as you said, it hasn't cost the taxpayers, yet.

I was unaware that uranium mining in the US has stopped, however Uranium mining says, "Price declines in the late 1970s and early 1980s forced the closure of numerous mines. Rising uranium prices since 2003 have increased interest in uranium mining in Arizona, Colorado, Texas and Utah." However, while most of the article is about the USA, wikipedia is supposed to be global in scope and thus it does have to be mined somewhere. I am unaware of the costs involved in mining and caring for the health of the miners.

As for the Licensees paying taxes, while that would mean that the costs of local planning, security, etc, are covered and are not a Subsidy, it does mean that those taxes must be included in the Economics. Under "Operating costs", taxes are never mentioned. If they are really as high as you say, then they should be mentioned.

Again, if utilities pay so much per kwhr into the disposal fund, that also has to be added into Operating costs.

"Shipping is on the utility. Local government agencies are notified, but government security personnel are not used on civilian shipments.", well perhaps. Even if civilian shipments use private security guards, any shipments through populated areas (like 99% of the shipments:) would have police protection as well. There is no doubt in my mind that no police force in the world would allow such shipments without their protection, even if it had 10,000 private guards, even if just for political reasons. Again, while the subsidy cost might be low if enough private guards are employed, the Operating costs must include the cost of the guards. In addition, the governments must plan and obtain equipment for possible accidents. Hopefully the DOE and FBI have spent thousands of man hours planning for and training for possible accidents or theft of nuclear material. Those costs must be accounted for.

While I am not an expert, every special on TV I've seen always mentions that the US Army will provide security for waste shipments. I guess that could be wrong. It also might be true that the industry pays the government for such protection. Either way, someone has to pay and it needs to be mentioned somewhere. Fanra 19:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Added a Waste disposal section to the article. It needs some facts on the costs, which are hard to obtain with a causal check, since the groups involved don't provide hard numbers except as buried in thousand page reports :) Fanra 19:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see [25] for a brief discussion of how spent nuclear fuel is shipped in the U.S. As also stated in Spent nuclear fuel shipping cask, armed guards are provided by the licensees (and only in heavily populated areas). You may be thinking of nuclear weapons shipments, which are heavily guarded constantly by the military.

You are quite incorrect about the guarding of spent nuclear fuel shipments. They are normally completely unguarded. The casks apparently are considered robust enough to permit this.

All power plants pay taxes, although nukes pay more because so much of their investment is in structures that get taxed as property. A single unit at a site can have a multi-billion dollar tax evaluation. However, my impression is that taxes are a very minor expense compared to capital cost and fuel, and we probably should get some numbers before making a statement.

Likewise the disposal fee is tiny. It's a tenth of a cent per kwhr. [26]

I stand corrected - I had read that with the shutdown of the last mine on Navaho lands uranium mining had ceased in the U.S. The EPA differs, saying that a few (six) mines remained in operation in 2004[27]. See also [28].

While I appreciate your fervor, I'm afraid there are problems with your text on waste. For a start, it reads like a criticism that belongs over in nuclear power. You aver that "long term storage of waste is unsafe and impractical on site" which has no reputable cite to it and is not true anyway - engineers could do it quite easily. Finally, you give absolutely no magnitudes to the costs. It will have to be modified somewhat, after research. Simesa 02:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to be corrected on several issues. I will have to research more. However, on one point, I find your comment to be very strange:

You aver that "long term storage of waste is unsafe and impractical on site" which has no reputable cite to it and is not true anyway - engineers could do it quite easily.

Please explain why nuclear waste must be stored in Yucca Mountain, with the many years and billions of dollars spent to ensure that it is deep in a mountain, if it is so easy to store. I could go into an essay on why the material, of which the high level waste is so deadly that exposure for seconds is fatal, requires such effort but I find it strange that you don't know this, with your apparent expertise on nuclear power issues.

As for your other points, you seem to be correct about the casks. The regulations do indeed say armed escort in heavily populated areas only. However, a look at the railroad tracks in the USA reveal that just about all shipments must pass through heavily populated areas. In addition, most nuclear plants are in heavily populated areas.

It seems that it is felt that the cask itself provides enough security. While I might question the wisdom of trusting casks that have only been tested for accidental conditions and not tested for intentional attempts to pierce them, you are quite correct that such discussion does not belong here.

Please feel free to correct any errors you find in my posts. Fanra 04:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I said it could be done, and it could - there are combined shipping and storage cask designs that would do it. Indan tribes explored doing essentially that. However, it isn't economic for the utilities to store fuel for several thousand years. The U.S. federal government has been paid to and is required to take title to that spent nuclear fuel and it has to put it somewhere - and that high unbearably-bleak niche between the Nevada Test Site and the Nellis AFB missile range was perfect. A world-class permanent depository was constructed. (Me, I'd pay the Chinese to reprocess for us - a far superior solution, as the remaining waste decays very rapidly.)

BTW, U.S. nuclear power plants are required to be a certain distance away from major population centers (which is basically what did the Shoreham plant in). The NRC is re-studying the minimum assured distance, so I won't elaborate now. Simesa 06:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Since I was living on Long Island at the time, I can tell you that wasn't what did Shoreham in. It was a combination of runaway costs and politics. Mostly politics. Officially it was due to the fact that New York Governor Mario Cuomo representatives did not sign the Emergency Evacuation Plan. See: Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant. The NRC had no problem with the location. Otherwise they never would have given them a permit to begin with. If you have some evidence that the NRC was making moves near the end to change the rules, like you say they are now, that doesn't affect current plants, although it might affect new plants, which is the subject of this article. The final act of LILCO (the power company) with Shoreham was to do low power testing (which by the way irradiates the plant), which the NRC allowed to happen, even though it was in a highly populated area. You might find it interesting that the head of LILCO performed the low power testing for the sole reason of improving LILCO's bargaining position in the State takeover of LILCO. Very nice of him to make the plant site radioactive and require decommissioning when he knew it would never open. Fanra 07:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

That was what we saw - the projected plume from a major accident might have crossed (thus closing) the only two major traffic arteries and isolating/trapping the eastern third of the island. When the plant was started, that area was all potato fields (except the rich tips of the island), but by the time of the long-delayed start of testing the suburban areas had grown out to surround the plant. I was at GE (the reactor vendor) at the time, and interviewed at LILCo in 1985. I decided not to accept their offer because, unlike the GE and Shoreham staffs, my research gave me the conclusion that the chances of the plant being allowed to operate were less than 50/50. Anyway, the gist is that high population areas aren't practical sites for evacuation reasons. However, my strong impression from the people I interviewed was that LILCo was convinced the plant would operate, hence going forward with LPT. Should it have operated? - IMO not if the people of New York State were willing to buy it out. Simesa 08:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that people at LILCO could have deluded themselves into believing the plant would open. Still considering that New York State and Suffolk county both announced in Feb 1983 they would not approve any evacuation plan and that two years later LILCO was still nowhere close to getting any kind of legal work around to that, it is kind of delusional to do LPT in 1985. Either delusional or calculated for bargaining. My impression of the CEO of LILCO at the time was of a very shrewd man, so I concluded it was for bargaining. Still, it was twenty years ago, so I can't promise my memory is perfect.

As for the plume crossing highways, as you said, high population areas aren't practical. Even if the plume didn't cross the highways, the traffic situation on Long Island is so bad that it would have been bumper to bumper. Rush hour is always fun there. Fanra 11:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

nuclear power

i think that nuclear power plants are a big part of this world. very important to us. electricity, heat, steam turbines, but i think its also dangerous because if it gets out than people can get cancer and very serious diseases well thats all i have to say im in the 8th grade butg iknow i cant do without electricity.°thanks!° —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.244.172.114 (talk) 22:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Please try to avoid turning talk pages into forums for your opinions, unless they are beneficial to Wikipedia. Your above comment, while it does represent a good and possibly well-meaning opinion, does nothing to contribute to Wikipedia and thus is not necessary. Elfred 00:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives