In a recent and controversial report, the Royal Academy of Engineering (RAE) estimated that nuclear plants generated power at a cost of 2.26 pence per kWh (including building and other capital costs).
This compared with gas-fired power stations at a kilowatt hour cost of 3.64 pence, and coal stations at 3.33 pence.
However, critics of the report say the RAE has underestimated the capital costs associated with nuclear; they argue that the RAE's figures therefore do not provide a true comparison between nuclear and gas or coal.
i am not biased, but i do have the web site world-nuclear wrote:
2005 OECD comparative study showed that nuclear power had increased its competitiveness over the previous seven years. The principal changes since 1998 were increased nuclear plant capacity factors and rising gas prices. The study did not factor in any costs for carbon emissions from fossil fuel generators, and focused on over one hundred plants able to come on line 2010-15, including 13 nuclear plants. Nuclear overnight construction costs ranged from US$ 1000/kW in Czech Republic to $2500/kW in Japan, and averaged $1500/kW. Coal plants were costed at $1000-1500/kW, gas plants $500-1000/kW and wind capacity $1000-1500/kW.
At 5% discount rate nuclear, coal and gas costs are as shown above and wind is around 8 cents. Nuclear costs were highest by far in Japan. Nuclear is comfortably cheaper than coal in seven of ten countries, and cheaper than gas in all but one. At 10% discount rate nuclear ranged 3-5 cents/kWh (except Japan: near 7 cents, and Netherlands), and capital becomes 70% of power cost, instead of the 50% with 5% discount rate. Here, nuclear is again cheaper than coal in eight of twelve countries, and cheaper than gas in all but two. Among the technologies analysed for the report, the new EPR if built in Germany would deliver power at about 2.38 c/kWh - the lowest cost of any plant in the study.
Nuclear has stalled out in the USA due to the cost of getting all the legal clearances to build a new plant.
NZ would also have the added expense of having to get used nuclear material shipped all the way back to the UK to reprocess, which is a big enough hassle for France, which is a lot closer.
And given NZ is on a fault line, we may well have to pay someone to store the used nuclear material as well for a couple of dozen millennia. I can see Aussie being REAL happy with that one.
Joined: Mar 05, 2007 Posts: 2,165 Location: 172.20.0.151
Posted: Mon 16th Jun 5:02pm Post subject:
Resource consent for a Nuclear power plant... Hmm..
Project Aqua got sparcped and the Makara Wind Farm was looking touch and go for a while..
Nuclear power.. no chance.
Joined: Mar 05, 2007 Posts: 2,165 Location: 172.20.0.151
Posted: Mon 16th Jun 5:11pm Post subject:
I have often wondered why the council does not make solar hot water compulsary for a new house bullding permit, Only going to add a few grand to the price of a new house.
Joined: Mar 05, 2006 Posts: 1,593 Location: Auckland, Mt eden
Posted: Mon 16th Jun 5:27pm Post subject:
Tama wrote:
I've got a crazy idea - why don't we put some resources into insulating New Zealand homes and making our industry more energy efficient?
Oh, my bad - that'd be too cost-effective and sensible
good Idea, but it wont stop the fact that we need more power as the population grows.
who is going to insulate a rental property there is no incentive for the owner to do it until renters demand it and with the home ownership rates falling and accommodation in short supply. the govet needs to build well insulated high density (3 bedroom) state housing in popular areas ( eg any residential area that has a average land capitation of less than 1)
sorry to go way back to the last page of this... but i was JOKING about the Perpetual Motion Machine. there is no such thing, they defy all laws of physics. but my point was, that all this talk of 'easy hydrogen' is basically that, a perpetual motion machine. you put water in one end, turn it into hydrogen and oxygen, use the hydrogen to generate electricity which you use to 'split' the water... alas, it takes umpteen times more energy to get the hydrogen out than it does to put in. thats why Solar is being used by the various 'hydrogen economy' advocates, as talked about on National Radio this morning on the news... California.
Efficiency, first and foremost.
Pine trees into vehicle fuel.
Waste products from industry (eg Tallow) into vehicle fuel (already being done by a plant in auckland (designed by my dad))
Farmers putting a couple of acres each into either Sugar Beet or Fodder Beet (which they grow already, have the ability to do), which feed into district centre digester fuel ethanol plants.
sure, Hydrogen as a byproduct into fuel.
Tidal is only put into viable areas, there are no "slack tides". a few years ago i contacted NIWA about tidal and got put onto the guy who was researching it. i asked about French Pass, and he said it was "off the graph". cook strait has such massive and predictable flows that it could provide the whole country's power on its own.
We. Do. Not. Need. Nuclear.
like i said, we'd be beholden to the nations that sell the uranium, or plutonium. we dont have any natural deposits (well, we do actually, but its locked safely away under Kahurangi National Park).
Joined: Mar 28, 2006 Posts: 4,166 Location: Beside the pie warmer.
Posted: Tue 17th Jun 12:31pm Post subject:
Dazzle wrote:
Nuclear has stalled out in the USA due to the cost of getting all the legal clearances to build a new plant.
NZ would also have the added expense of having to get used nuclear material shipped all the way back to the UK to reprocess, which is a big enough hassle for France, which is a lot closer.
And given NZ is on a fault line, we may well have to pay someone to store the used nuclear material as well for a couple of dozen millennia. I can see Aussie being REAL happy with that one.
There are also international laws on the disposal of reprocessed nuclear waste. Currently these stipulate that they must eventually be returned to the country of origin. Australia is currently facing the dilemma of where to establish a dumping site when all the waste material from its Lucas Heights reactor starts being returned from Japan in 2011.
Generation fo nuclear energy is way cheaper. The costs go up as Dazzle has pointed out with compliance costs in setting up a power plant as well as the costs of securing and managing the waste for a long-time after it has ceased to be useful for power generation.
All times are GMT + 12 Hours Goto page <<1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
Page 10 of 10
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest ℗ 2000-2008 by Tama Easton.
Extra design ℗ by Scotty Lane and Nathan Whitley. Photos and written work on this site are property of their owners, do not use them for commercial purposes.
Developed for Microsoft Internet Explorer 7.0 and Mozilla Firefox 3.0
