I am afraid you have completely misunderstood the comparison. You are comparing on the basis of unit cost for peak power. You must compare on the basis of power that can be supplied on demand. The difference is about a fact of 20 in the costs of solar and nuclear. This explains:
http://bravenewclimate.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/lang_solar_realities_v2.pdf

I know I’m stepping into the den of the beast here, going back to stcking up for solar power after this long thread of pro-nuclear comments. Clearly we have a high percentage of Nuclear supporters on this blog (unsurprisingly of course, given the nature of the blog).
But after Peter and Honza discussed the costs of new NPPs at length I feel the need to step in and stop the self congratulatory economical debate in it’s tracks.

I’d like to refer you back to the “Die Zeit” article that Barry used in the initial article here, to get his point across.
http://tinyurl.com/ydvbp8n
Page 2 in particular is of interest to me.

Now, Honza and Peter seem to have come to the agreement that a new NPP can’t be built in a western market for substantially less than $3000/kW. Currently building a Solar Power Plant in Germany will cost you roughly 4000€ /kW.
The problem in large parts of this discussion is that it relies on german number and that the german market is skewed in it’s pricing of solar power.
As you can read in the “Zeit” article the consulting company “photon consulting” has calculated that the cost of solar panels is down to about 1000€ /kW. Adding the cost of cables, etc, connecting to the grid, and installation they estimate a final price tag of 2000€ /kW for a fully functioning solar installation. And that is today.
The reason why germans are still paying 4000€ /kW for their solar installations is that the energy policy hasn’t “failed”, it just failed to stop at the appropriate time. It has done what it was supposed to: it has stimulated research and mass production, in turn bringing down production costs and promoting widespread acceptance of the technology.
Now it is time for germany to start cutting away the substitution. The amount of money that Germany throws at people who feed their solar power into the grid keeps the prices for solar panels up artificially. The big winners here are the solar companies who have 1000€ /kW solar panels rolling off their belts and sell them to consumers for 4000€ /kW because they know home owners will still break even whithin 10years.
Please recheck my numbers in the link that Barry posted:
http://tinyurl.com/ydvbp8n
If you add the fact that solar plants maintenance costs are a fraction of an NPPs, I think we’ll see solar panels become economically viable very soon, ESPECIALLY without substitutes, which have up to now kept the price of solar power unnecessarily high across europe.
Consider too, how long it takes to contruct a new NPP, including paperwork and actual construction time (I think we’re looking at 10+ years, if not more, I’m not sure here) and then consider that because of it’s modular nature, small to medium scale solar plants can be punched out of the ground within a year all over the country, in many places at once, then “reaction time” becomes a factor in the climate debate as well. Remember that this is a political debate just as much as it is an economical one. Many countries have committed to lowering their CO2 levels considerably within short timeframes, such as by 2020, and beyond. Building new NPPs is simply not an option to reach those short term goals. Not to mention resistance in the population of Germany against additional nuclear complexes.

Now. Putting this all back into perspective. Considering the price of constructing Nuclear power plants is going up, and the price of solar panels is going down, I do believe that solar power will play a continually larger role in any countries energy mix, wether you like it or not.

However, I must agree with you guys on the hot subject of demand spikes. Without a reliable and widespread storage solution, solar power, as well as wind power can only remain a partial solution to energy demands, and it remains to be seen how well governments and renewable energy providers will respond to this concern.

I feel that this comment might fall on deaf ears on most of this blog’s audience, but I hope you will at least consider these points and provide valid counter arguments that will further the debate.

Ps.: I forgot to mention that Germany imports all of it’s nuclear fuel from other countries, mainly russia if I’m not mistaken. This of course adds to stability concerns and significantly heats up the political debate surrounding nuclear power.

With commitment from government, we could have a commercial IFR up and running in five years. If that construction project proceeded comcomitantly with NRC oversight and certification, we’d be able to start building them shortly thereafter. Because they operate at near-atmospheric pressure and don’t require the construction bottlenecking pressure vessel, we could almost immediately begin building them by the hundreds. As for fuel supply, I dealt with startup fuel requirements in my book, the conclusion being that if we took all the spent fuel and ex-weapons plutonium worldwide and processed it into IFR fuel assemblies, we’d have enough to fuel about 600GW+ of IFRs. I’m not sure what your comments say there about it, and frankly I don’t have time to dig into it so I’ll just refer you too my book if you want more detail. Better yet, here are a couple of the pertinent paragraphs:

The problem is that the actinides needed for the IFR startup loading only comprise about 1% of spent thermal reactor fuel, and it takes about 5 tons of actinides to fire up a 1 GW IFR. So if we could somehow reprocess all 300,000 tons of “nuclear waste” available in 2015, that would yield 3,000 tons of IFR fuel, enough to start up about 600 GW of the new reactors. The crash program proposed would build some 250 GW per year. Even if we add in old weapons-grade material from military programs we’ll have less than three years’ worth of IFR startup fuel at that rate of building, even if we could reprocess all of the spent thermal reactor waste very quickly.

If we site all the early generation IFRs in nuclear club countries and configure them all for maximum breeding capability, each of them will be able to create enough new fuel to fire up one more IFR of similar size in about 7 years. Thus for every plant built as a maximum breeder that means one more in seven years. If we could manage to meet our startup goals for the first seven years, after that the program would be completely self-sustaining. Of course even if we have only enough fuel for three years of startups at our one hundred plants (of 250 GW ea) per year rate, with maximum breeding we’d be able to consolidate new fuel so that by the fourth year we’d have enough from the first three to start up about sixty more. We’d be almost halfway there. The more IFRs come online, the more startup fuel will be available every year for new ones.

It would seem that the only way to meet our startup goals would be to ramp up uranium mining for a while. Embarking on a crash program of IFR building and uranium mining would surely drive up the price of uranium to hitherto unseen levels. But whereas uranium enrichment for LWRs only requires a 4% U-235 concentration, IFRs require 20%. The cost of that five-fold increase would be a deal breaker. Added to the increases in mining it would entail, and all the other cost factors, the saner choice would be to simply build as many IFRs as quickly as possible so that their breeding can begin in earnest, and make up the shortfall with the most sophisticated and safest LWRs, such as the Westinghouse AP-1000 or GE’s ESBWR.

While this is not the perfect world scenario we might prefer, it is hardly a grim prospect. Just look at the major negatives of nuclear power today: safety, proliferation, cost, and waste disposal. These new LWRs are designed to be safer than any nuclear plant ever built. They employ passive safety systems similar to that developed for the IFR, and can be expected to perform perfectly well over the course of their service lives, especially considering that they would be under the construction and operational oversight of GREAT. Proliferation concerns would be addressed by that very same operational factor, and if necessary every one of the them could be built in nuclear club countries, with IFRs being built in both club and non-club nations.

The “lesson” they are talking about is mainly about US, where basically every plant is custom made. No wonder costs spiraled out of control.

Here is a little known fact: majority of China’s leadership are engineers.

Thank you for these comments. Very interesting. The link you provided is interesting, particluarly since up to date.

This sentence caught my eye: “One clear lesson from the history of nuclear power is that forecasted costs are invariably lower than actual costs incurred during plant construction.”

I agree (of course that applies to renewable projects too). I’d also point out that the most successful projects have been the brainchild of an exceptional engineer and leader. The book “The seven wonders of the Industrial World” illustrates this with examples such as “Panama Canal, Brookland Bridge, the light house off Scotland, an enormous ship, railway across the Rocky Mountains, Boulder dam and another I don’t remember off hand. The Australian Snowy Mountains hydro electric scheme, is another example; I’d attribute the success of the project to the leadership of Sir William Hudson.

The point I’d make is that we cannot allow a brilliant engineer to be in charge and build a project, such as a nuclear power plant, any more. The public and politicans won’t allow it. We all have to be part of ripping to pieces those trying to build anything like an NPP now days. This is what we we will need to change if we want low cost nuclear power. I have no doubt in my mind that low cost nuclear is feasible, but not under the type of regulatory environment that curreently aplies to nuclear energy in the West.

to estimate cost of NPP is really complex issue, there is a lot of studies, anyone can pick the one they like. I would recommend reading this blogpost ( http://www.energypolicyblog.com/?p=849 ).

Of course, nuclear could cost far less, but the reality is that it won’t. At least not in the “west.” I believe that price will settle at ~$3000-$3500/kW + inflation, assuming reasonably big production of standardized reactors.

Ultimately, we will know after some projects are finished. I hope that Westinghouse will learn from Chinese experience and will not make same mistakes as Areva, btw they delayed Olkiluoto again, mid-2012 is not realistic, wtf are they doing?

The problem in EU are non-uniform regulations(every state is doing it’s own certification ect), EU should concentrate on EU-wide nuclear certification instead of ban of light bulbs. I am from one of smaller countries, there are 3 reactors planned (at the current sites) and it will take 7 or 8 years of paperwork to get the permit. 190 out of 200 MEPs support it, population is also very supportive. And it will take at least 7 years to get the stamp for the reactors. I really hope they will choose big ones.

I have more or less resigned on CO2 emissions, nobody who really matters cares about it. There has been nice video about GW with great quote: Imagine that tomorrow’s headline is “Al-Quada is dumping CO2 to the air and is planning to destroy us using global warming.” That would produce results. GW is not perceived as threat.

Thank you for that info. I had no hidden agenda in my question. I was genuinely asking you if you consider the costs the MIT study has come up with are about right. I felt the MIT 2003 study leant towards an anti-nuclear bias and they had inflated the prices somewhat (not intentionally, just because of the influence of the group’s beliefs).

I agree with much of what you say. It is why I keep harping on that Australia has the choice of low cost or high cost nuclear. High cost is what you and the MIT study are quoting. Low cost is what nuclear could cost if we were prepared to stop the massive over-engineering, massive over-regulation, accept uniform regulations for all electricity generation, and accept the same level of risk for all electricity generation technologies. If we really want to cut CO2 emissions, we are going to have to cut the cost of nuclear.

Wiki links to source and has nice table http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashiwazaki-Kariwa_Nuclear_Power_Plant
I guess we could argue what kind of exchange rate should be used since according todays normal exchange rate it would be ~ $3048/kW even for cheapest of them or PPP exchange rate (that would mean 33% drop in price and ~$2000/kW, PPP is used in the study for $/kW). No idea.

Anyway according to the study (that is what I meant by “cost goes up”),
* Since 2003 construction costs for all types of large-scale engineered projects
have escalated dramatically. The estimated cost of constructing a nuclear power
plant has increased at a rate of 15% per year heading into the current economic
downturn. This is based both on the cost of actual builds in Japan and Korea
and on the projected cost of new plants planned for in the United States.*

“15% per year. Based on acual builds in Japan and Korea.” It should be noted that cost has increased for everything(see the table 1 in http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/pdf/nuclearpower-update2009.pdf), not only nuclear.

So in the end, I still don’t believe in $2000/kW.

—

I realize how emotionally invested you are in IFR so I have no desire to argue about it. My point of view is that for now, IFR is simply not here to make any kind of impact and it will be a while before it will have some kind of impact (unless you become world dictator).

Although I would be interested in your response to one comment made by Charles Barton (http://djysrv.blogspot.com/2009/06/ge-hitachi-briefs-congress-on-prism.html):
An S PRISM related study “S-PRISM Fuel Cycle Study: Future Deployment Programs and Issues,” suggested that as of the year 2000, four hundred tons of plutonium could be recovered from spent nuclear fuel. This in turn would provide enough plutonium to supply start up charges for twenty-two, 1520 MWe S-PRISM facilities with about output of 33,440 MWe. That is about 12 tons of plutonium per 1 GWe of reactor capacity.

—-

And as the last thing it should be me who apologize about grammar and typos. My second posts is full of them.

—-
@Peter Lang:
I am not sure what are you asking. The update basically said the cost of big construction projects has gone up, nuclear power plants are still offered and build only in jumbo size and they cost arm and leg to build.

NPP are very expensive, only big utilities (or group of smaller ones) can afford it. There was some post on Idaho samizdat a while ago listing US utilities that could afford it. It was rather short list. Building NPP is “bet the farm thing” for many US utilities.

The study also has some recommendations for spurring the buildup of NPP, but IMO US government should simply ask Westinghouse to build 4 AP1000 for taxpayers money. That would get rid of FOAK problem with regulator, recreated nuclear suppliers and also show that they are really build at reasonable price and at reasonable timeframe (at least last two). It is not easy to be first.

The cost of material is really immaterial when it comes to these nuclear plants. The materials cost (steel, concrete, copper, nickel, etc) comes to about $35/kW, whereas the cost of the plant I was shooting for was $2,000, and these materials prices were just recently updated by Per Peterson of U.C. Berkeley. As for cheap labor costs and a command economy, bear in mind that the Japanese have high labor costs, a democracratic government, and they import virtually everything, yet they were still able to build the FOAK ABWRs cheaply and quickly. Since IFRs would be totally modular (which the ABWRs weren’t) and able to be built quickly and in great numbers because they don’t require the pressure vessel because they operate at near-atmospheric pressure, there are considerable cost saving that can very reasonably be expected, as reflected in repeated testimony before Congress and as can be reasonably projected from all these factors.

No, I most certainly do not lend credence to most estimates bandied about in the USA except insofar as they reflect our dysfunctional system. Nor do I buy the line that we’re just so much more careful and safe. Japan built the exact same design that we’d build in the USA. Anybody making estimates of the cost of nuclear power in the USA is always looking over their shoulder at the lawyers from environist organizations and building in not only their profits but plenty of padding to boot to try to compensate for construction delays due to lawsuits. I’ve seen estimates as high as $10 billion/GW from highly respected individuals who were being seriously considered for some of the top energy jobs in the country, using the flimsy rationale that that’s how much the worst-case fiascos cost in the 80s so we have to assume that cost today. It bogus through and through.

I should have said in my previous post “thank you. That is a good summary”. I consider all the costs for EPR, AP1000, and other Gen III+ power stations to be FOAK costs. I suspect we have a long time to run until we re-build the lev el of expertise that built the French, Canadian, US, German, Swedish, UL, etc reactors in the 1970′s and 1980s.

Costs will decrease from FOAK until they become settled down costs. That will be after about 5 of a type has been built in a country.

After that introduction to my question, I am interested in what you think of the MIT study “The future of nuclear power – 2009 Update” and their evaluation of costs for new nuclear build.

http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/

What do you think of the cost summary in the MIT study “The future of nuclear power” 2009 Update?

http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/

I hope everyone can divide by two. When you build more units at site, it leads to significant savings (~15% according to Nuclear Energy Outlook 2008).

Flamanville-3: Of course it is lower than Ol3, Ol3 was FOAK project, 3 years late and 40% over initial budget.

Comparing building in China is rather unfair, because of cheap labor, friendly regulation and lot of experienced and qualified workforce, China has been building big construction projects a lot. Thanks to state planning they will probably utilize specialized teams for each stage of construction, improving quality, cutting costs and time.

EPR in China:
First deal was € 5 billion(~$2272/kW) for two, second one was $6.4/2xEPR (~$1939/kW) (the whole deal is $12 billions, but rest of the deal is enrichment facility).
AP1000 at Sanmen 1&2 and Haiyang is probably ~ $2253/kW. Because Chinese are experienced + in friendly environment they got it right first time.

It looks to me that $/per kW is roughly same in China for both EPR and AP1000. I assume that Chinese got it about as right first time(Sanmen and Haiyang) as French second time (Flamanville), therefore it should cost about same on per kW basis () in Europe (this is rather speculation, until someone builds it, but if ratio of cost about same in one country, it should be similar in other country). Still, it looks to me that price will be far higher than $2 billions/GW. Also, you won’t get much friendlier nuclear regulations than in France (Flam3 it took ~2.5 years to approve).

I am wondering if I have some error here, I always thought AP1000 was significantly cheaper than EPR per kW basis.

@Tom Blees:
That was 10 years ago, cost of material, inflation ect. go up rather fast. My point is that $2 billions/GW it is not reasonable cost estimate for Germany according to reality.

Of course if you want to go to fantasy land of state monopoly with full commitment to nuclear power, it may be possible. Probably not though. I haven’t found current material/equipment/labor ratio for NPP, so let us assume data from before Three Mile island as indicator (http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter9.html#1). The ratio there is ~ 1:1, yet Chinese build them quite close to $2000/kW. Considering price of work in China and Germany, I don’t see any way to achieve the price even if regulator was very friendly.

About the only way to achieve the specified target price is to ask Chinese to built them in Germany without regard to laws (workers protection…) and regulatory agencies in Germany.

Event GE-Hitachi says that ABWR would cost more:

Mid 2008 vendor figures for overnight costs (excluding owner’s costs) have been quoted as:
GE-Hitachi ESBWR just under $3000/kW
GE-Hitachi ABWR just over $3000/kW
Westinghouse AP1000 about $3000/kW

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html

Ad: exercise in meaninglessness..
Maybe, but from what I have observed in the world, cost of projects has tendency to increase from estimates, rather than decrease. I would argue that even discussion about price of reactors is meaningless discussion, because we have no way to verify, until they are build, and no way to affect the price.

P.S.: I can’t believe how long it took to write. I rather admire you dedication, because of sheer amount of time it must time to write all the comments here.

You mean prices *drop*!?!?! What???

AFACIT it is not so rosy:
Levy county NPP – 2x AP1000, $14 billions
Virgil C. Summer NPP – 2xAP1000, $9.8 billions
William States Lee III NPP, 2xAP1000, $11 billion
Olkiluoto-3, 1xEPR, € 5.3 billion
Flamanville-3, 1xEPR, € 4 billion

Did I miss something?

As I noted previously, I don’t care how they build ‘em so long as they do. The gov’t is the best start in terms of where to begin because even if you are for building ‘private’ plants (heaven forbid) it will have to be more than just a passive slight majority of people who want them. It has to be a *serious* commitment by government to both allow and encourage them. How that plays out in Australia really is anyones’s guess and will depend a lot on how the parties and other stakeholders line up. I would suggest, as even the case in the US to a more limited degree, that no one trust profit incentive to run a plant safely given the history of corporations cutting corners. I think this is a secondary issue in that *strong government intervention in the regulatory process at a minimum* at in the US with the NRC, shows that gov’t oversight and intervention works well. BTW…there are zero intergroups that think we ought to get rid of the NRC as “excessive gov’t intervention” … not even on group things that … but that reform is certainly on the order of the day.

As for compensation for coal owners. Obvsiously Fran and I see basically eye-to-eye on this. But there compensation and there is “compensation”. Any older, out of date, *destructive* technology and owners behind them when they *knew* it was bad news have a lot to answer for IMO. However…I’m not in principal about ‘just compensation’. But just for who? Just the owner? How about the unionized work force from the plants to the railroads to the mines? I’d start with the actual producers…that is the workers, and the paper-holders second.

At any rate, in the US, the gov’t pays true market prices which means antiquated technology, depreciated equipment (the fault of the owners who take tax write offs on “depreciated” machinery) and land values are supposed to be judged on true value. The coal plant owners might get some dimes on the dollar, but that’s it.

Lastly, as I don’t give a hoot for the owners, what happens to the *value* of their property when no one is buying their product? If it goes to “Zero”, essentially, below the cost of production, because of gov’t regulation of the market, the coal burners have little to complain about and the “market” that TerjeP loves so much will settle the issue and no compensation is necessary.

For me the goal is to build new GEN III plants with a plan to move on to GEN IV production in a few decades. I think anyone who is nuclear has to support building new nukes with out preconceived ideological prejudice. Period.