tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post48241135858025627..comments2024-03-07T02:00:01.582-05:00Comments on NEI Nuclear Notes: Michael Mariotte from NIRS Needs to Update His Cost SourcesUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-19922311084066830432008-10-26T08:39:00.000-04:002008-10-26T08:39:00.000-04:00While increasing material costs influence renewabl...While increasing material costs influence renewable generation costs, it is not the case that both renewables and nuclear are effected identically. Nuclear power has long construction times which are often delayed. I know from my conversations with Dominion managers that materials cost are an especially tricky component of the North Anna 3 negotiations.<BR/><BR/>With relative quick and much more predictable construction schedules, wind power options don't have to pay the same risk premium for materials that nuclear does.<BR/><BR/>Nor are high materials costs the only problem that prospective reactor builders face. The inherent complexity of these projects tends to inflate costs. US reactors have a terrible cost overrun and delay history.<BR/><BR/>Avera just announced it's 4 delay for the Finnish EPR, already 3 years delayed and over $2 billion over budget. If wind power exhibited these huge overruns, no private money would be invested in it.<BR/><BR/>Which is why nuclear requires large state subsidies to exist.memeticisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06391852694742133226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-23746104769603349202008-01-18T00:34:00.000-05:002008-01-18T00:34:00.000-05:00Solarbuzz has a handy historical cost index for so...<A HREF="http://www.solarbuzz.com/" REL="nofollow">Solarbuzz</A> has a handy historical cost index for solar power.<BR/><BR/>It's been basically static (in nominal dollar terms) for the past few years. That's probably better than most other energy sources - but, of course, it's so far in excess of even the retail cost of electricity in most Western countries as to be almost completely irrelevant.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-83283343872518517202008-01-16T21:37:00.000-05:002008-01-16T21:37:00.000-05:00There is no doubt that the cost of building a nucl...There is no doubt that the cost of building a nuclear plant is high (although not really by that much compared to other types of energy generation.)<BR/><BR/>But it's relatively cheap to operate and has a lifetime of at least 30 years before it would need a new reactor and possibly much longer. <BR/><BR/>It's basically an investment in the future. You bite the bullet on the cost and it takes a few years to pay it off (depending on the capital situation). But once it's built you have a new capability and you cruise from there.<BR/><BR/>it's not much different from something like the Hoover dam. It took a lot of money to build but it was paid off and running well by the 1950's. Since then the operators can kick back and cruise with minimal upkeep costs.<BR/><BR/>New capabilities always cost more in the short run but are better than cheap bandaid solutions which never really address the problemSteve Packardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16848066611904465368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-51493254048219510532008-01-16T17:22:00.000-05:002008-01-16T17:22:00.000-05:00Since the carbon footprint to construct wind, sola...Since the carbon footprint to construct wind, solar , and nuclear seem to be similar, it would seem that increases in construction costs per KWH delivered would be also similar.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com