Nuclear Costs Explode

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/jan/15/bz-nuclear-costs-explode/

Nuclear Costs Explode
By RUSSELL RAY, The Tampa Tribune
Published: January 15, 2008

Progress Energy Florida is going to have to spend more than originally planned to build two nuclear reactors in Levy County, the utility's top executive said.

The St. Petersburg-based utility won't disclose how much more expensive the project will be until it's presented to state regulators within 90 days. Based on new industry estimates, the revised cost could be two to three times more expensive than the projection Progress issued more than a year ago.

<snip>

FPL, based in Juno Beach, said recently that the "overnight cost" of its two-reactor project would range from $12 billion to $18 billion, more than twice as high as Progress Energy's December 2006 estimate. Overnight estimates exclude the interest paid on the loan and are based on commodity prices when the estimate is made.

<snip>

"Moody's is closer to the reality we're seeing," said Michael Mariotte, executive director of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, a nonprofit group opposed to nuclear power. "Even before they start building, the costs are going up. Meanwhile, the cost for solar, wind and energy efficiency are on a downward trend."

<snip>

:nuke:

:)

:yoiks:

:think:

What? What? What?

Heh heh, yeah Butthead, number stuff is stupid!
Heh heh, yeah Beavis, stupid number stuff!

There are 1000 watts in a kilowatt

from the OP....

, Moody's Investors Service, one of three major rating agencies, said in October that new reactors would cost up to $6,000 per kilowatt of capacity to build. At that price, Progress Energy's two-reactor proposal would cost $13.2 billion. FPL's recent estimate was $3,100 to $4,500 a kilowatt.

:nuke: :evilgrin: :nuke:

:banghead:

:hi:

:dunce:

Patrick Mazza was part of the Keystone group which estimated nuclear at $3500-$4000/kW:
"In response to deezakin, no, the factors that are driving nuke to 8-11 cents kWh are pushing wind to about 6.5 cents, and that includes grid connections and balancing resources. Add another 2.5 cents to the nuke cost for a comparable figure. Also note that wind prices are up not just because of the general run-up in materials costs, but because wind is booming and the supply chain is still being built."
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/6/18/161052/155

Hmm. Concrete, steel copper and labor are also primary raw materials for, er... wind farms. (but not reactor technology, though!)

I think that GG might call this "receding horizons."

<snip>

"Moody's is closer to the reality we're seeing," said Michael Mariotte, executive director of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, a nonprofit group opposed to nuclear power. "Even before they start building, the costs are going up. Meanwhile, the cost for solar, wind and energy efficiency are on a downward trend."

<snip>

If the cost of nuclear is going up because of inflation of raw materials and labor, then it's pretty dubious that the cost of wind farms and solar farms is going to go down. They use the same labor and raw materials.

Well, solar is also driven by silicon costs. But that is driven by energy costs. Which are going up.

In order to run a nuclear plant, one needs to keep supplying it with fuel, and disposing of the waste. We can expect the cost of uranium to continue to go up, and in a sane world, the operators would need to pay for disposal of their waste.



On the other hand, there are no fuel costs associated with wind and solar power, while waste (raw materials used for construction) can be readily recycled.

n/t

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

http://www.solarbuzz.com/ModulePrices.htm

So why was the average price of solar $4.32 in June of 2004 and why is it $4.83/watt now?

Hmmmmm...

It takes more than PV modules to build a solar power generation plant. Mounting structures, bases, concrete, wiring, power combining and condtioning equipment, inverters, transformers, power lines, labor, ............

480 Watt* system: http://repowersolutions.com/solar.html

Note that a solar installation at home needs *no* power lines, so the solar solution saves that.

*rated power

of miles of power lines (or their carbon footprint).

It's not fair.....

..... like the small 480 watt system. That price sounds about right.

But we were talking power plants in this thread. Slightly bigger infrastucture costs.

A multi-gigawatt power plant located hundreds of miles away might require the extra infrastructure costs you describe,
but you don't need that for grid-tied rooftop PV.

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:www.sandiego.edu/epic/publications/documents/060309_ASESPVPotentialPaperFINAL.pdf

Given the existing building stock, the current technical
potential for roof top photovoltaics in the San Diego region
is just over 4,100 MW (8,947 GWh)...

To put these results into perspective, in 2005 San Diego Gas
& Electric (SDG&E) had a peak demand of 4,058 MW and
total sales of 19,214 GWh. Therefore, the technical
potential represents over 100% of peak demand and 53% of
energy needs.

There is nothing invalid about locally produced electricity

... until posts 20 and 23 brought up price/watt of PV modules and small residential systems. Different economics than power plants. Just sayin'.