I wonder how much the maintenance of the first few nuclear plants were compared to the few wind farms today?

Cost goes down as popularity (Technology) increases.....Now Nuclear has the lowest cost per $ available.

I haven't studied this at all but I probably have a point here.
I'd bet alot of farmers wouldn't mind the extra income with having their fields spotted with those mills.

 

Hi EricGo:

___You may be getting ahead of yourself?

___First off, Nukes output almost no GHG’s. Without liability coverage from the government, nukes do not exist. This liability coverage has been in existence for decades and will continue to be the only way a nuclear facility will be able to operate. Exelon is the largest nuclear utility here in the US and does have a $/kWh cost of < $0.01 at some of its facilities. You base load them in most cases and let them run with a few load following swings a month for load balance.

___Coal plants supply a bit over 50% of our nations needs. GHG gases or not, without them, you have zip. Some of the best running plants using LS Western based coal have emissions lower then that of the Prius II on an energy output vs. emissions output basis. That should say something for coal.

___A Wind Turbines cap factor is based on both wind strength and windmill design. If the latest 2 - 4 MW Wind Turbine runs in winds above there cutoff, they feather the props and produce nothing. In the perfect range of wind, they can output their full MW rating. As wind speed decreases, their output falls. There simply is no wind anywhere in the world that is reliably consistent and thus you have 2.3 MW plants outputting supposedly just .7 MW over any given year maintenance or not. I was a bit surprised as to the low Cap factor myself but this would be the only explanation. Nukes today easily run at a Cap factor of > 90% where coal runs at around 70%. I believe Coal plants are load followers more so today then in the past and thus their reduced Cap factors? I am typing somewhat beyond my knowledge in regards to Coal and wind turbines here?

___Nukes run at ~ $0.015/kWh at the operational level. Coal supposedly runs in the $0.02 - $0.03/kWh range. Wind Turbines actually cost $0.002 kWh once they are up and running but at $0.065 kWh range from permit to production; they cannot compete given many in this country pay just a tad above that at the light switch!

___I am not discounting Wind Turbines in the least but they are not cheap on a $/kWh basis even though the energy they tap for all intents and purposes is free and is 100% renewable.

___Good Luck

___Wayne R. Gerdes

 

The fact the energy for wind turbines is free and renewable means the price can only go down. As regulations are made to get rid of nuclear waste and coal runs out the prices for those two will go up.

Also just because people pay just a little more than it costs to make electricity from wind doesn't mean people won't have to pay more in the futre. As the consumer price of electricity rises so does the profit from wind.

 

Xcel,

As I said, and you confirm, nuke power is gov subsidized though liability coverage. Back end or front end cost -- it is there, and should be counted in any calculation of how much an energy option costs. Don't you think ?

Btw, who foots the bill for nuke waste product storage ? Who is paying the R&D of yucca mountain ? Who will pay in O&M costs, and liability coverage costs ?

Similar arguments with coal. At least 50% of grid power is coal based, that is true. However, just because it already exists does not exclude it somehow from cost analysis beyond the meter. If you ignore the pollution cost, the analysis is useless.

I realize that wind power has it's own set of restrictions. However, continuing to turn a blind eye to the REAL costs of each alternative, and pricing them accordingly, is staus quo energy policy (or lack thereof) that is the core problem.

 

___Since there is no coverage paid out, what is the liability coverage worth? It has not cost you or me a single nickel? Nukes have general liability like any other business and in some cases even self insure but not for the public at large.

___In terms of who pays for radioactive waste disposal and R&D for Yucca Mountain, the rate payers of those utilities with Nuke plants do. Tens of billions have already been paid to the US government and the US governments promise to use those funds for long term storage has done nothing but decreased the general deficits of our country. Boy do I wish some of that money was returned given how it was actually spent

___Nuke plants are darn expensive but they can be base loaded so that all of our lights turn on when we throw the switch at any time day or night just as coal and gas plants do. Nukes however do not emit GHG’s. Wind turbines have the problem that if the wind doesn’t blow at just the right speed, you cannot simply throw your switch and expect the lights to come on …

___Good Luck

___Wayne R. Gerdes

 

The government did find something else do do with all the depleted uranium, but in order to use it up they require lots of wars. It makes really awesome ammunition because when it's fired it catches fire and gets REALLY hot as it travels through the air, so when it hits a tank (or anything) it can easily penetrate it, like butter. The only problem is that it tends to turn into a ceramic dust in this process and people breathe it in, and the ceramic (not being water soluble) moves around the body and collects in the lymph nodes. DU isn't much of a radiation problem when it's outside the body, but inside the body it can thrash your immune system and usually causes cancer if it goes undetected. Unfortunately not many of the people exposed to the DU are aware of the dangers or use adequate air filtration to prevent exposure in the first place. DU was the primary factor in the "gulf war syndrome" cases, but it's still being used in all the active US military operations and being sold to other countries. It's a big business.

It's great to see the government turning garbage into gold! Too bad it's going to be radiating people for the next 4.5 billion years. Ah well, can't win 'em all.

 

[QUOTE=xcel
___Nuke plants are darn expensive but they can be base loaded so that all of our lights turn on when we throw the switch at any time day or night just as coal and gas plants do. Nukes however do not emit GHG’s. Wind turbines have the problem that if the wind doesn’t blow at just the right speed, you cannot simply throw your switch and expect the lights to come on …

___Good Luck

___Wayne R. Gerdes[/QUOTE]

Hi Wayne our 2 nuke plants are base load units and really I've never seen them swing at all. the only time they are broungt down is for refueling or maintaince. The coal units are base load and in the past they had reduced load at nights, but the past few years as they have shut down some of our older gas units the coal plants have been loaded up all the time too.

As far as cost per mhr I will not say exactly how much it costs for fuel and o&m but I do see it on the computer all the time and nuke is about 3 times less than coal and gas is well thru the roof, on of the retired plants it was costing over 90.00 mhr. I can see why they retired that plant. Our SO2 removal rate on one of the coal units is over 80% while the NOX removal on all the coal plants is approx. 90%.Kevin

 

Hi Texashchman:

___All nukes are base loaded and ours are too but we do have 100 + MW swings every few weeks (during non-peak and not in the summer months). This is a load balance issue as there are 3 Nukes within 25 miles of one another. Braidwood is running ~ $0.009/kWh all in cost to the output breakers this year but that does not include the wires company (ComEd) in the equation. Coal plants are running ~ $0.03/kWh from your utility then?

___Given the outrageous cost overruns when building Byron and Braidwood here in IL., they would never be able to stand on their own on interest expenses alone today. The next Gen plants from GE/Westinghouse for the NuStart consortium will come in at ~ $1 Billion/1,000 MW’s or less including pre-approval of all site licenses or they will not be built due to pure economics. Duke will probably be first but again, all licenses will be approved up front and there will be no-one in the way as it is just too much of an investment to play games with nowadays.

___Good Luck

___Wayne R. Gerdes