Pumblechook said:Nuclear Power has never been profitable.
ensabah6 said:While I am not privy to costs, I imagine the start-up costs of a natural gas burning plant is pretty low compared to a nuclear plant, with only CO2 as the by-product. That, coupled with my own skepticism of AGW, makes me wonder whether nuclear is competitive against natural and oil burning electrical generation.
Commentvanesch said:Yes, a gas plant is the cheapest and the fastest to build. But the fuel is expensive, and moreover, the fuel price is quite volatile, as there are larger and larger tensions on the LNG market (until recently, with the crisis).
Those opposed to nuclear power frequently make the claim that it has always relied on a significant amount of public subsidies and doesn’t make sound economic sense, even considering any environmental and security of energy supply advantages. The industry counters by accepting that as a developing technology, nuclear received subsidies in the past, but as a mature technology today should be able to attract financial investors without any degree of governmental support.
There are three main areas where, broadly speaking, subsidies or other support for energy may apply: government research and development (R&D) for particular technologies; subsidies for power generation per unit of production (or conceivably per unit of capacity); and the allowance of external costs which are either paid by the community at large or picked up later by governments. Public policy has been driven by worries about energy security, as well as by the need to address environmental problems and social concerns. Reliable and affordable energy supplies are vital to any economy, while energy shortages or the threat of such have political and economic consequences. As concerns have evolved from oil shocks to climate change, each country’s energy provision and infrastructure needs to be restructured accordingly. We can examine each of the three main areas in turn.
. . . .
In conclusion, it can be accepted that nuclear historically received significant public funding, but this was arguably necessary for an ‘infant technology.’ Renewables now receive heavy direct subsidies in the market, while fossil fuels receive significant indirect subsidies in their waste disposal. While public assistance for renewables is arguably justifiable, the costs of doing so must be made explicit and subject to comparisons with alternatives. The adoption of any policies or conventions to take account of external costs of generating electricity will have a very beneficial effect on the prospects for any strong resurgence in the role of nuclear energy.
old post, maybe a typo.russ_watters said:In the roughly 30 years since the last nuclear plant construction projects began in the US, the US wind generation capacity has reached 1800 MW. ...
How is it possible to assign profitability to a state monopoly in a meaningful way? It seems to me profitability is arbitrary in such a case, as the state can essentially charge whatever rates it whims to reach profitability. It could equally arbitrarily assign EdF a loss if it the higher (short term) goal was to provide lower rates for the public.vanesch said:I think there are good reasons to try to get away from fossil fuels in any case.
The problem with gas is that it is coupled to the oil market, and probably prices (although they are falling right now) will increase in the long term. So gas is going to be a very expensive thing to make electricity with. It is already now much more expensive than coal.
Also, although I'm certainly not an AGW alarmist, I think one will not be able to do without the issue. There is a serious probability that there is AGW after all, and even if it turns out not to be there, it will be a long time before this will be so obvious that it won't be a political argument anymore. So even if, against all odds, AGW turns out not to be real, "social AGW" will be with us for a few decades.
And finally, sooner or later, we WILL run out of cheap fossil fuels, even coal. Now, I know that the USA has huge reserves of coal, but Europe for instance, doesn't have many anymore. And, as you say, it is dirty, no matter how you turn it. Modern coal plants are somewhat cleaner than old plants, but it remains a very dirty thing.
Well, the nuclear boom in France was because EdF was a state monopoly. It was a state utility (but nevertheless, profitable).
mheslep said:How is it possible to assign profitability to a state monopoly in a meaningful way? It seems to me profitability is arbitrary in such a case, as the state can essentially charge whatever rates it whims to reach profitability. It could equally arbitrarily assign EdF a loss if it the higher (short term) goal was to provide lower rates for the public.
mheslep,mheslep said:How is it possible to assign profitability to a state monopoly in a meaningful way? It seems to me profitability is arbitrary in such a case, as the state can essentially charge whatever rates it whims to reach profitability. It could equally arbitrarily assign EdF a loss if it the higher (short term) goal was to provide lower rates for the public.
That may well be true. It also misses the point I made. To determine profitability one needs a ratio of all the costs, including capital costs, to the resulting income over time. In a company owned by he state, the state can (and frequently does) throw other tax dollars at the industry, then the user rates need not be reflective of the entire cost (ala US's Amtrac, Conrail, etc). That is not to say that the French did lose money on nuclear; I'm sure French nuclear did make money given it blocked costly and delaying law suits against its nuclear projects. Either way, we don't have conclusive evidence in front of us here merely by looking at French electrical rates.Morbius said:... The rates EdF charges its customers are quite reasonable; and actually LOWER than in neighboring countries.
Edit: French wine also successfully competes abroad thanks, in part, to the http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/the-grapes-of-wrath-depressed-french-wine-producers-bomb-government-offices-530798.html" given by the French taxpayers.In addition, EdF SELLS power to its neighbors like Denmark and Germany where it successfully competes against wind [ Denmark ] and solar [ Germany ].
mheslep said:That may well be true. It also misses the point I made. To determine profitability one needs a ratio of all the costs, including capital costs, to the resulting income over time.
You seem to be mistaking evidence with capitalization.Morbius said:mheslep,
Those HAVE been looked at! Even with a government run corporation - the rate payers still pay
one way or the other - they pay directly in rates - or through their taxes. Either way nuclear power
IS cost effective in France.
The French taxpayers are NOT subsidizing the power purchases of Denmark and Germany.
The evidence is CLEAR - nuclear power IS economical in France. The only reason nuclear power
has economic problems in the USA is because of the delays caused by lawsuits.
I agree completely. I generally would support any politician proposing such. Edit: Absent such reform, I do not support limitless building of http://www.sptimes.com/2008/03/11/news_pf/State/Nuke_plant_price_trip.shtml" nuclear plants that rate holders will have to eventually pay for. (Though some more are needed even if they are expensive).Morbius said:...That can be FIXED! The problem in the USA is that we give the anti-nukes "a second bite at the apple" in legal parlance. We have a 2-step licensing process - one before construction, and one before operation / after construction.
It's the opportunity to file lawsuits and rehear the same issues that they LOST on in the construction permit process that causes the problem. The utility has borrowed money to build the plant and the operation is held up by lawsuits and the plant can't begin earning its keep.
The push is to reform our licensing laws - so that any objections and lawsuits have to be filed at the construction permit level. If the opponents LOSE their lawsuit the utility gets a construction permit. If the NRC says the plant was constructed in accordance with that permit - then the utility gets a license - and the opponents who LOST on the first round can NOT file for a second chance.
mheslep,mheslep said:I agree completely. I generally would support any politician proposing such. Edit: Absent such reform, I do not support limitless building of http://www.sptimes.com/2008/03/11/news_pf/State/Nuke_plant_price_trip.shtml" nuclear plants that rate holders will have to eventually pay for. (Though some more are needed even if they are expensive).
French nuclear power was also planned to be economical.Morbius said:The evidence is CLEAR - nuclear power IS economical in France. The only reason nuclear power has economic problems in the USA is because of the delays caused by lawsuits.
Yes those are roughly the fuel+O&M numbers I see. However, comparisons of O&M alone to coal don't help much, since the plant cost for coal at ~http://web.mit.edu/coal/The_Future_of_Coal_Chapters_1-3.pdf") - not that such a comparison is all that useful, as in addition to cost of plant wind rightfully should be weighed with some baseband costs from other sources to cover variability, and some portion of the transmission costs for the necessarily remote locations in the wind belt. I see the 'all-in' cost of wind, if it intends to become 20% of the US power system, at more like 6-8 cents per kilowatt-hour (unsubsidised), more still for offshore installation.Morbius said:mheslep,
The power plants are capital intensive - but fuel cost is low.
Nuclear generated electricity costs about 2.0 to 2.1 cents per kilowatt-hour at the busbar; where coal produced power is about 1.9 cents per kilowatt-hour. Nuclear is actually the 2nd cheapest next to coal - that is without the environmental and health costs of coal being internalized.
If we augmented the cost of coal with the environmental / health costs; then it would no longer be the cheapest; nuclear would be. The nuclear costs include the tax paid for waste disposal and the contribution to the fund that pays for plant decommissioning.
Agreed.As long as the utility doesn't face opposition from lawsuits and government; nuclear power is quite economical. We have both extremes in the USA for comparison. If you look at California and New York; where the State government actually opposed the power plants; then plants like Diablo Canyon [ CA ] and Shoreham [ NY - bankrupted ] cost way more than they need to.
However, if you look at the Commonwealth Edison system serving Chicago and northern Illinois - the fleet of 7 reactors in the Chicago area provide something like 80% of the system's power which is ona par with France.
Do you have a source for that EdF information?Pumblechook said:The nuclear part of EDF is in considerable debt.
No nuclear power has ever really paid its way.
Even American Westinghouse was run by the British Government for a few years.
Morbius said:Dr. Moore also covers the fact that nuclear has about one-fifth to one-tenth the carbon footprint
of wind and solar in terms of the full lifecycle. Neither nuclear, wind, nor solar is truly carbon
emission free when you consider the CO2 emitted in the manufacture of the steel for reactor vessels,
pipes and rebar for nuclear; turbines and towers for wind, and heliostats for solar.
Pumblechook said:The nuclear part of EDF is in considerable debt.
No nuclear power has ever really paid its way.
Even American Westinghouse was run by the British Government for a few years.
Pumblechook,Pumblechook said:"EDF's debt rose to €24.5 billion at the end of 2008 from €16.3 billion a year earlier."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123442614532776763.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
If you can't calculate the profitability of a public owned company then it's debt is even harder to really account for. We have railway lines built a 150years ago which on the governments books are £Bn in debt and brand new NHS hospitals that are somehow built without any government expenditure.Pumblechook said:"EDF's debt rose to €24.5 billion at the end of 2008 from €16.3 billion a year earlier."
I suspect the French believe that their nations power supply would be safer in the hands of their government than owned by a foreign hedge fund.Pumblechook said:Nonsense. If nuclear was successful in the private sector British Energy, EDF and BNFL would be trading healthily in the private sector.
Pumblechook said:Nonsense. If nuclear was successful in the private sector British Energy, EDF and BNFL would be trading healthily in the private sector. They are NOT.
BE has had massive subsidies.
Pumblechook said:"EDF's debt rose to €24.5 billion at the end of 2008 from €16.3 billion a year earlier."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123442614532776763.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Coal is subsidized by the lives and health of coal miners and the people who die prematurely from burning coal and by the damage caused by global climate change. Is that not a form of subsidy in the sense that the coal power companies can make money without having to pay those social and environmental costs?Pumblechook said:Nonsense. If nuclear was successful in the private sector British Energy, EDF and BNFL would be trading healthily in the private sector. They are NOT.
BE has had massive subsidies.
As I don't care to see this thread locked, I hope we can get more facts on the historical costs of nuclear power in France - the entire capital and operating costs - not tangents. So far in this thread we don't have any useful facts on French nuclear costs, just assertions. Corporate debt is not that useful as a measure. The Ecologist is essentially an advocacy journal, though if there are references that can be pulled from that article I'd enjoy seeing them.Pumblechook said:Talk about living in a dream world.
These operators can't survive in the private sector.
REPEAT.. If they were successful they would be in the private sector and would have been for years.
The Finnish builder/operator is only going ahead on the basis that they get a guaranteed price for their output.
The non-nuclear part of British Energy is profitable. The nuclear part is not. Attempts to privatised BE Nuclear have failed.
BE couldn't even pay rates (local tax) at some of its stations.
"""If nuclear power seems cheap in France, it is because half the costs have been ignored. An accurate accounting of costs, direct and indirect, reveals France's massive nuclear electricity programme as a ruinously expensive folly.
Written with Peter Bunyard, co-editor of The Ecologist. Published in The Ecologist Vol. 11 No. 6, December 1981.""
In theory perhaps, doubtful in practice. In any case you have not looked here at the principle economic factors. Plant costs. Insurance. Enrichment.Andrew Mason said:If one looks at just the economic factors, nuclear compares favourably.