Talk:Economics of new nuclear power plants
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Archives |
|||
|
Contents |
[edit] Water usage
Any information on the amount of water used/needed for cooling, and the imputed or actual cost? See this article: Water usage and nuclear, IHT--Gregalton 12:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting article you linked. While cooling water doesn't have a direct economic cost (since it normally is just grabbed from a lake or ocean with the only cost is pumping it) it has very large indirect costs. It also seems to effect what is often cited as a major economic benefit of nuclear power, the ability to produce power at will, for example: not dependent on wind or sunlight. If nuclear power is dependent on cool water, which is limited in hot or dry conditions, then that does add indirectly to the cost. Fanra 21:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- I personally found this article to have a very biased standpoint. Nuclear power wouldn't generate any more hot water than an equivalent Coal or gas fired power plant (they all use an energy source to heat water which is then run through a generator). Why was this article directed at only the nuclear industry, when it effects 90% of the worlds electricity generation as well as many other industries. TwistedWeasel (talk) 05:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
See Environmental effects of nuclear power for more information, and in another article I put comparisons of water usage of different power sources. The article you linked to was one in a wave of sensationalism on the subject. No nuclear plant ever has to shut down because of increased ambient temperatures, they only do so to avoid introducing hotter water to the environment. And while a host of sources use more water than nuclear, nuclear does use more than the average I would say, and the fact that they're centralized makes them a very very good political target. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 18:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] KWe
I've never seen this unit.
A kilowatt is a thousand watts.
A Watt is a Joule per second.
So, what is a KWe? Is it effective, as in Watts of electricity?
Isn't that implied? Who hangs a rat for the total rate of heat the thing makes?
- Yep, a KW of electricity rather than a KW of heat. Some nuclear reactors don't produce electricity (usually research or military), or vary greatly in thermal efficiency, so the distiction is important. Usually expressed MWe or MWt (Mega Watt thermal). Rwendland 15:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
See Watt#Watts_electrical_and_thermal for an explanation with a real-life example. — Omegatron 04:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Good article on costs
Have a look at [1]. NEI usually gets their stuff straight with this kind of thing, and the truth is that there is huge debate right now about how much new plants will really cost. A lot of this is the same stuff in the article right now though. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 18:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Figures
It would be very helpful if someone wrote how much money a nuclear plant can cost, and give some examples of plants that were built.
Louiechefei28848888 (talk) 21:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Cost per MWh (or kWh)
The following paragraph is incorrect:
"The lifetime cost of new generating capacity in the United States was estimated in 2006 by the U.S. government. Nuclear power was estimated at $59.30 MWh."
1. Cost for generating capacity is a fixed capital cost measured in $ per KWe (kilowatt electric, an electric power measurement), and is about $5,000 to $6,000 per KWe for nuclear (see 'Capital Costs' earlier in the article). Other fixed lifecycle costs not included in the capital cost (such as fixed decommissioning costs, etc.) are also measured in $ per KWe.
2. Cost for generating energy is a variable cost measured in cents per KWh (kilowatt-hour, an electric energy measurement), and is about 6 to 7 cents per KWh for nuclear. This typically includes all variable lifecycle costs, such as fuel cost and interim spent fuel storage, and some variable decommissioning costs.
3. The sentence as written is unclear, no reference in given for the number provided ([31] page 73 does not provide this figure), and '$59.30 MWh' has incorrect units.
4. The same problem exists in the next section, "Comparisons with other power sources": "The lifetime cost of new generating capacity in the United States was estimated in 2006 by the U.S. government: wind cost was estimated at $55.80 per MWh, coal (cheap in the U.S.) at $53.10, natural gas at $52.50 and nuclear at $59.30."
$59.30 per MWh is 5.93 cents per KWh, which is about the MIT group's estimate of the cost of nuclear energy per KWh, less the 2005 tax benefit. If this is what the author means, then this quantity should not be called "The lifetime cost of new generating capacity", but "The cost of electric energy per KWh generated".
Whoever wrote these sections needs to check and cite his/her references in detail and straighten out the units. --Pachtman (talk) 20:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
