You can’t run cars with power that comes directly through the power line.
No, but you can power people’s homes, businesses, and industry. Currently we’re burning ungodly huge amounts of coal to do that. Just because a green energy source isn’t the final solution to all energy needs is not a point against it.
You ignore the running cost of the nuclear reactors.
I was addressing the argument, often put forward, that the up-front costs of nukes are much higher per-kilowatt than other green energy sources. The operations and maintenance costs of nuclear energy are so low that they are seldom attacked. Here are some approximate numbers
You don’t price risk from blowups and you don’t price long term storage costs.
Those are both included in the O&M costs, actually. And by the way, name me a single light water reactor that has blown up. Or any modern reactor, for that matter. There are good reasons to believe that such an event is very unlikely or (in some cases) actually impossible.
If the word “average” would be meaningful in this context than you would simply compare solar cell productivity + transmission line losses to nuclear plant costs + transmission line losses.
Construction costs? O&M costs? O&M plus loan payments until the up-front investment has been amortized off? There’s more than one type of cost to consider, so I decided to focus on the particular argument that construction costs were too high.
As for “average” being meaningless, it’s true that I’ve ignored transmission line losses. Those are not high enough to significantly affect the calculation, and both nuclear and solar tend to have longer-than-average distances between the plants and the consumers, so I doubt there would be too much difference between them (unless you went with something like the idea of putting solar farms in the Sahara desert and sending the electricity to Europe).
You aren’t comparing the price of nuclear vs. the price of solar but the price of nuclear vs. solar + hydrogen.
By your own numbers the price of solar is 3$ per watt while the price of nuclear is 7$ per watt.
Your solar power plant that’s backuped with hydrogen produces the energy at different prices at different times.
While a nuclear plant can produce the same amount of power at night than at day it’s not possible to change the amount that gets produced as fast as you can change how much hydrogen you burn in fuel cells.
You aren’t comparing the price of nuclear vs. the price of solar but the price of nuclear vs. solar + hydrogen.
Oh crap, you’re right. I got this confused with another discussion. Sorry about that. Anyway, the latter is a more meaningful thing to compare.
By your own numbers the price of solar is 3$ per watt while the price of nuclear is 7$ per watt.
That’s cost per peak watt; a more relevant number is cost per average watt (assuming perfect energy storage at no cost). To get that, you have to multiply by the capacity factor. For new nuke plants, that’s about 93%. For solar, it about maxes out at 20%. So construction cost per average watt would be about $7.50 for nuclear and $6 for solar.
Of course there’s more to it. There’s the cost of storage and backup, and maintenance, and of course the plant lifetimes differ by a factor of 3-4, and both types of power will get significantly cheaper to build over the next decade or so. But as a first approximation, you could do worse than multiplying peak cost by capacity factor.
While a nuclear plant can produce the same amount of power at night than at day it’s not possible to change the amount that gets produced as fast as you can change how much hydrogen you burn in fuel cells.
Correct (for large light water reactors). Power grids do need the ability to adjust production to meet rapid changes in demand. What of it?
No, but you can power people’s homes, businesses, and industry. Currently we’re burning ungodly huge amounts of coal to do that. Just because a green energy source isn’t the final solution to all energy needs is not a point against it.
I was addressing the argument, often put forward, that the up-front costs of nukes are much higher per-kilowatt than other green energy sources. The operations and maintenance costs of nuclear energy are so low that they are seldom attacked. Here are some approximate numbers
Those are both included in the O&M costs, actually. And by the way, name me a single light water reactor that has blown up. Or any modern reactor, for that matter. There are good reasons to believe that such an event is very unlikely or (in some cases) actually impossible.
As for long-term waste management, I’ve addressed that in more detail here. It’s surprisingly straightforward.
Construction costs? O&M costs? O&M plus loan payments until the up-front investment has been amortized off? There’s more than one type of cost to consider, so I decided to focus on the particular argument that construction costs were too high.
As for “average” being meaningless, it’s true that I’ve ignored transmission line losses. Those are not high enough to significantly affect the calculation, and both nuclear and solar tend to have longer-than-average distances between the plants and the consumers, so I doubt there would be too much difference between them (unless you went with something like the idea of putting solar farms in the Sahara desert and sending the electricity to Europe).
You aren’t comparing the price of nuclear vs. the price of solar but the price of nuclear vs. solar + hydrogen.
By your own numbers the price of solar is 3$ per watt while the price of nuclear is 7$ per watt.
Your solar power plant that’s backuped with hydrogen produces the energy at different prices at different times. While a nuclear plant can produce the same amount of power at night than at day it’s not possible to change the amount that gets produced as fast as you can change how much hydrogen you burn in fuel cells.
Oh crap, you’re right. I got this confused with another discussion. Sorry about that. Anyway, the latter is a more meaningful thing to compare.
That’s cost per peak watt; a more relevant number is cost per average watt (assuming perfect energy storage at no cost). To get that, you have to multiply by the capacity factor. For new nuke plants, that’s about 93%. For solar, it about maxes out at 20%. So construction cost per average watt would be about $7.50 for nuclear and $6 for solar.
Of course there’s more to it. There’s the cost of storage and backup, and maintenance, and of course the plant lifetimes differ by a factor of 3-4, and both types of power will get significantly cheaper to build over the next decade or so. But as a first approximation, you could do worse than multiplying peak cost by capacity factor.
Correct (for large light water reactors). Power grids do need the ability to adjust production to meet rapid changes in demand. What of it?