The eye-watering expense of nuclear power

[xchrom]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/may/04/expense-nuclear-power-energy-coalition


Sizewell nuclear power plant, seen from across the sea at Southwold, Suffolk. Photograph: Graham Turner for the Guardian

Just for a moment, forget whether you're pro-nuclear or anti-nuclear, and reflect on the coalition government's policy for nuclear power.

It wants to see 10 new reactors built over the next few years. It sees this as a critical part of its carbon management strategy, and absolutely necessary to help "keep the lights on". It believes it will strengthen the UK's energy security at a time when North Sea oil and gas continues to decline. It is working closely with a wide range of energy companies to help deliver the 10 new reactors. That's the plan. Some think it's great; some don't much like it, but see it as a necessary part of addressing accelerating climate change; some think it is seriously misguided.

It doesn't really matter what you think: it cannot possibly deliver – primarily for economic reasons.

Nuclear reactors are massively expensive. They take a long time to build. And even when they're up and running, they're nothing like as reliable as the industry would have us believe. Few if any companies have balance sheets that are strong enough to cover the capital costs of a new reactor – with a starting price today of about £6bn, and growing by an average of 15% per annum. For that reason, the funding has to come either from private investors or from governments: no reactor has ever been built anywhere in the world without substantial government subsidy, and no reactor ever will be built without substantial government funding in future.

[qb]

1. I think nuclear plans are more about whose hands are in whose pockets

than any serious economic analysis.

[John ONeill]

3. Nuclear isn't a part-time worker

The nuclear power plants operating in the UK now are easily the most important non-fossil electricity source, but all except one of them are due to close inside about ten years. Last month was very calm - wind power produced far less than its nameplate capacity, and at the moment is making 1.4% of its rated maximum. https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
Solar obviously won't ' keep the lights on '. If you want light, open the curtain - a window is much cheaper than a solar panel, and lets in 95% of the light. With the panel, you'll be lucky to get 20%, at midday, far less if it's cloudy, none at night or if there's snow on the panel. In the UK, there is about six times more sunshine in July than in January, but power demand in winter is much greater, with the peak in the evening. Nuclear power stations make more power in winter - they schedule maintenance outages for times of low demand, and they get another few percent efficiency if their cooling water is colder.

[kristopher]

2. Don't you know that the environmental groups are all corrupt?

I've heard it here time and again from nuclear proponents that the environmental groups are so wrapped up in fund-raising that they just want to build more coal. I'm not sure how, precisely that is supposed to work, but maybe you should be careful about the sources you trust.

if sarcasm tag is required.