Electricity Bill Impact from Nuclear Costs

[M]

Can I ask for some numerical information. I don't want to start any argument, just get a better feel for costs, so.

I've tried reading several DECC docs etc, but simply can't get a handle on what nuclear costs us. I'm not looking to knock, just like some boring numbers.

Is there a breakdown of what general taxation impact nuclear has, and any numbers on the electricity bill itself, is there a 'nuclear' component, is it in the green tariff for instance.

The more I've looked the more confused I've got. In fact searching for green tariff 'stuff' is really hard now, as I seem to get millions of hits on companies green tariff rates instead.

Thanks.

Martyn.

[martin]

I think you've summed up the sheer brilliance with which successive governments have succeeded in "burying" the true costs of nuclear power, and usually totally omitting "clear up" costs

[M]

You just couldn't resist could you.   

Maybe it's because I'm a fellow 'warrior of Mars', that I find your wicked sense of humour so funny!

Whenever I try it, I end up offending people, sorry again Jeremy, and well done Strutt for hoisting me by my own petard (he's even more wicked!).

Mart.

[renewablejohn]

I think you've summed up the sheer brilliance with which successive governments have succeeded in "burying" the true costs of nuclear power, and usually totally omitting "clear up" costs

Might be a little bit harsh as some in government had in the past recognised the high cost of nuclear but have since done a U turn.

M

Best example I could find was the latest attempt with Sizewell B. How the government predicts costs will decrease rather than increase is beyond me given the increase already in the price of steel and concrete which are major elements of any nuclear plant.

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/post/postpn208.pdf

[M]

Thanks John, but wow, this keeps getting harder, just that report suggests;

1.6p to 2.5p
2.1p
2.5p and
3.9p to 4.5p

No wonder I was struggling.

I'm genuinely interested, not stirring, but can't believe that given the length of time such equipment has been running worldwide, there isn't a simple answer, to how much is a unit?

How is nuclear subsidised, is there a list of components, was I right or wrong in thinking there was an element in the 'green tariff', or elsewhere in our household bill? The more I look and ask, the bigger the question seems to get.

(As I say, not stirring, I assume calculating a figure for variable wind, would also be a pain).

Cheers,

Mart.

[martin]

It illustrates why I tend to avoid figures on things as much as possible, as in this case it is immensely complex - if you built a nuke plant 15 years ago, costs would be considerably less for construction than they are now -  so to merely extrapolate those costs would be inaccurate as 70% of our present plants are going offline in the next 8 years, so it is reasonable to look at costs as they will be, rather than how they were historically... Then you've got the fact that crystal balls are pretty lousy predictors of cost, particularly with nukes (looking at the ever-escalating costs of the unpronouncable Finnish reactor for instance suggests that costs are just snowballing, as are the delays) - then there's the fact that historically governments have never properly costed in such things as clear up expenses, ensuring proper financial provision in the case of accident, and the fact that they provide  "hidden subsidies" to help bolster the totally untrue "we'll only proceed with nukes if the private sector fund it" rubbish....

[renewablejohn]

M

Thats the problem you get when information is censored by the government. If the true cost of Nuclear was ever declared then nuclear as a cost effective fuel would remain on the drawing board alongside the Fusion reactor. No private investor would be mad enough to take the risk.

[Ted]

Mart, there is no one answer to your question as the quoted costs will always vary depending on many things such as: date of study, inclusion/exclusion of finance factors, country, etc.

To enable a better way of searching for relevant results I suggest you start by using Google Scholar and search for 'cost of nuclear power' and set the date criteria to 'since 2008'. You will get plenty of leads, some of which, unfortunately, can only be accessed by payment. But many of the free papers are worth reading.

Sample results:

http://www.nei.org/filefolder/MIT_Updated_Cost_Analysis_on_Nuclear_Power_05-2009_1.pdf
http://www.ourenergypolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2005_IntJCriticalInfrastructuresFutureForNuclearEnergy_InderscienceEnterprisesLtd_FutureForNuclearEnergyPebbleBedReactors.pdf
https://ei.haas.berkeley.edu/pdf/working_papers/WP218.pdf

[M]

Ted, thanks, you're a star as always.

Reading and learning, well, learning how much less I knew than I thought.

This isn't easy is it.

Cheers everyone.

Mart.

[M]

Another question, sorry guys to be such a pain.

Often hear about baseload and above baseload.

Is there any handy info, or graph that shows what UK generation is baseload and what (and when) we are operating above it?

Looking at the following site, suggests, an 8am / 8pm split between high and low, but I don't know where baseload fits in.

http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/Electricity/Data/Realtime/Demand/demand24.htm

Thanking you all as always.

Mart.

[A.L.]

Is there any handy info, or graph that shows what UK generation is baseload and what (and when) we are operating above it?

Apologies if this is obvious, but baseload is minimum required generation (over a period), currently about 30000MW in your link (again will be lower in summer)

On the basis that baseload is provided by a constant source look 3/4 way down this page, www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp_home.htm at the 'Generation By Fuel Type (graph)' you will see that Nuclear (grey) is very constant and Coal (Yellow) nearly so and they add up to about 30000MW so I would say they are supplying the baseload

[Tombo]

I have found these graphs useful to understand the figures involved. Taken from the Guardian.
DECC's budget sounds impressive until you take the Nuclear decommissioning out.

[dhaslam]

From  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Pressurized_Reactor cost of  unfinished Finnish reactor

Initial cost estimates were about € 3.7 billion,[10] but there were additional cost overruns of € 2.7 billion at June 2010.[11] The plant will have an electrical power output of 1600 MWe (net).[2]

That is about  €4000 per  kW  (and not finished) or about the same as  a wind turbine if you take  a 25%  output figure for the wind machine and 100% for nuclear.    Solar energy may come into the same  cost range within a few years.  

It is the other costs that are harder to calculate.    Both need supplementary  generators, wind needs a  reserve  gas plants  in the system  and so does  nuclear  but wind needs about double the amount so  about 100% extra for wind  and  50% extra for nuclear.  Storage facilities would probably cost a bit more but undersea  pressurized air storage  might be on a par.     After that the nuclear plant  loses out, far more expensive  staffing requirement, cost of waste disposal and storing   plus  high accident/sabotage risk.            

  

[M]

Cheers guys. I love those images, especially the 'tea towel?'.

Am I being unfair in any way then, to suggest that electrical demand is above baseload from 8am to 8pm, thus all PV generation meets demand, no storage necessary, or am I being blinkered to some other factors?

I appreciate that additional needs are necessary when the weather is bad, and during winter months due to unpredictability, but would those other means be consuming less resources when PV produces?

Trying to stay honest.

Mart.

[DominicJ]

Taken in isolation, a modern nuclear reactor is the cheapest way of generating electricity.
Thats why virtualy every country uses it for baseline power.

Most of the "nuclear is a rip off" arguements are at best ill informed, at worst purposefully deceptive.

For example, the UK's merry trip down nuclear generation lane had nothing at all to do with nuclear generation, and rather a lot to do with making bombs, and making them quickly.
Including the clean up costs for that program in the costs of nuclear generation isnt really an accurate picture of what nuclear power will cost in the future.

But also included, are old reactors, which were built with little thought as to how they would eventualy be decomissioned and the site cleared.
This is of course a problem, the site can be solved, by simply not clearing, but how to decomission a reactor not designed to be easily decomissionable is a challenge, and an expensive one, but it has little to no bearing on what future costs of future nuclear will be.

Cost over runs are an issue on all projects, even wind, again, finland is frequently mentioned, but Qinshan isnt.
Quinshan built two, on time and on budget, finland didnt.