China: High nuclear plant capital costs may discourage new plant builds

[bananas]

http://www.platts.com/Nuclear/News/8263374.xml

High nuclear plant capital costs may discourage new plant builds

London (Platts)--19Sep2007

High nuclear plant capital costs may discourage even developed countries from
building new plants, the head of the China Atomic Energy Authority, Sun Qin,
told an IAEA-organized meeting in Vienna September 18.

Sun said that based on China's experience, a 1,000-MW "Generation II" nuclear
power unit -- of the type China has built at Daya Bay and Ling Ao -- has a
total capital cost of $1.5 billion to $2 billion, or $1,500 to $2,000 per
installed kilowatt. "The figures are even higher for Generation III" plants
that were the subject of a bid won by Westinghouse early this year, he said.
He said CAEA believes that "the cost of a nuclear power plant should be about
$1,500/kW" and the cost of power should be 5 US cents per kWh. He said that
once a plant is operating, the power is competitive, but "we must resolve the
problem of initial investment." The Chinese government has used a variety of
tax breaks, preferential credits and other incentives to encourage nuclear
power plant construction, he told the IAEA's Scientific Forum in Vienna.

[enid602]

1. right

Yeah they've only got a trillion dollars in reserves.

[greenman3610]

2. but wait, its too cheap to meter!

[sabbat hunter]

4. the energy produced

is "too cheap to meter"
problem is in the building costs. Those costs have to be paid for one way or another.

[NNadir]

8. And what other forms of energy do you demand be too cheap to meter?

Zero forms in fact.

In fact, you are perfectly willing to let people starve to death or be killed by dangerous waste dumps (aka the atmosphere) rather than allow the cheapest fully loaded (external and internal) cost form of energy be used - that would be nuclear energy, which is the largest climate change gas free form of energy by far.

The entire antinuke "we couldn't care less about dangerous fossil fuels" makes a special category for nuclear energy.

Only nuclear energy is required to be too cheap to meter. On the other hand we can talk endlessly about solar, even though the cost of a solar system is 50 times the per capita income of a citizen of Chad.

Only nuclear energy is required to have no waste, but it is perfectly OK for Greenpeace twits to ignore the fact that NOT one, 30 million per year sequestration facility has been built, never mind that the output of annual dangerous fossil fuel waste is 100 times larger than that.

Only nuclear energy is required to have no long term impact of any kind. The Greenpeace anti-nuke set couldn't care less about synthetic karsts from abandoned coal mines, or ash retention pits.

In fact, the anti-nuke set consists totally of people who can only make negative statements about nuclear energy, mostly because it consists entirely of middle class and upper class brats who think their energy comes from a switch. There are zero practicing engineers coming here with anti-nuke nitpicking that harks back to 1954 comments by a government syndic. On the other hand, there are zero mindless anti-nukes who try to look at the shit-for-brains predictions made by the Walmart/Dutch Royal Shell/Rio Tinto/arctic mining apologist, the "solar will save us" corporate cretin Amory Lovins, in 1976.

By the way, if you want advice from Amory Shit-for-brains, unless you're a spoiled rich kid who inherited lots of dough (a popular state of affairs, I concede, among "solar will save us" advocates) you can't afford him. His corporate clients - for whom he will say anything to make them sound "environmental" - pay him $20,000 per day

My, the anti-nuke set has a especially long memory for less than realized promises that are 53 years old, and far, far, far, far, far, far less to say about "we can have our car culture with renewables" promises made just six years ago.

There are zero anti-nukes who have bothered to consider this report from the 2001 National Geographic:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/10/1016_TVhypercar.html

In the clean, "green" future envisioned by energy expert Amory Lovins, cars not only get 99 miles per gallon emissions-free, but they may also play a key role in providing electricity to a power-hungry world.

The solution, according to Lovins, is a "hypercar"—a lightweight vehicle powered by a hydrogen fuel cell, with enough style and space to compete with luxury sport utility vehicles (SUVs). Lovins is with the Rocky Mountain Institute, a think tank in Colorado, and chairman of its corporate spin-off venture Hypercar, Inc.

Some of the giant car companies are also designing hydrogen-powered cars. Hypercar Inc. hopes to have its first model ready to roll off the production line by 2005...

The antinuke cadre is morally and intellectually ridiculous. They have the prescience and historical awareness of a forty year old bottle of lemon Pledge furniture wax, not that I mean to insult forty year old bottles of lemon Pledge furniture wax.

[AlecBGreen]

3. uh

"The Chinese government has used a variety of tax breaks, preferential credits and other incentives to encourage nuclear power plant construction."

Its the Chinese government ... cant they just MAKE IT HAPPEN? Do they have to hire outside firms to build all nuke plants?

[phantom power]

5. Nuclear reactors require large front-loaded capital investment....

And their advantages are that afterwards they provide cheap, GHG-free, *non*-intermittent energy.

Kind of a "dog bites man" observation, to my way of thinking. It would be much more interesting to have some additional context regarding what he thinks the likely alternatives are. If these investors are reluctant to invest in nuclear, what will they be more likely to invest in?

[hunter]

6. Here in Northern California we pay 11 to 32 cents a kilowatt hour.

The more electricity you use, the higher the price. Turn on your air conditioner and you hit that 32 cents a kilowatt hour real quick.

5 US cents a kilowatt hour is CHEAP!

[bananas]

9. So move to China. nt

[hunter]

13. Wherever I go, there I am.

I suppose I could move to Ohio if China wouldn't take me.

We all breathe the same air, and contrary to the opinion of some, there is one world civilization and one human race.

What happens in China may, in fact, be my more important to my own family's well being than something that happens in another state.

Nationalism can be a very toxic point of view, especially the right wing "Love it or leave it" sort.

[bananas]

14. What I meant was, everything is cheaper in China.

It wasn't supposed to be as snarky as it sounded.

[NickB79]

7. Gee, I wonder what they'll build instead of nuclear reactors

Oh yeah, they ARE building 3 coal-fired plants per WEEK. Nothing to see here then, move along.

[losthills]

10. It doesn't matter what China does.

China will collapse under the weight of their own stupidity.

We need to progress according to our own design, and stand ready to assist the refugees.

But first-- stop shopping at Wal-mart....

[hunter]

11. Cool, it's a race to the bottom!

Which nation will collapse under the weight of their own stupidity first?

The U.S. looks to be a very strong contender at this point, since our consumers consume more, but China can catch up quick because there's more of 'em.

I 'spect will have enough of our own refugees to worry about. How many residents of New Orleans have moved back home now?

[Nihil]

12. It's interesting (in a detached, academic way) ...

> Which nation will collapse under the weight of their own stupidity first?
>
> The U.S. looks to be a very strong contender at this point, since our
> consumers consume more, but China can catch up quick because there's more
> of 'em.

Although the US are currently in the lead, the Chinese will (as you say)
catch up with them through dint of numbers. This will lead to a drop in
Chinese population as a result of approaching the bottom that will, in turn,
lead to a drop in output of crap that leads back to a drop in the American
population ...

I'm sure someone will be able to put a proposal together and get grant
money to produce a dinky little animation ... that seems to be the extent
of the Bush response to environmental studies ... at least it will give
the "elite" something to watch in their guarded compounds in Paraguay
when they get fed up of gloating over the newscasts of bodies around the
globe ...

[losthills]

15. It "matters" what China does, but...

we cannot control what China does. WE need to get out in front on this issue and show other countries a better way. If they see that we are right, then they will follow. That is what our country used to do, and was known for. And, yeah, Bush has got to go. Will a Democratic Administration chart a bold new course? I doubt it. So that leaves it up to the citizens and entrepreneurs, and I think they're doing pretty good without the government.

But if you think the road to the future should be lined with nuclear reactors, then you think just like the Chinese, and you are setting us up for a fall...

[razzleberry]

16. why does the US have to do everything?

Europe needs to go first,
they have the popular po;itcal support.

[losthills]

17. If you want to be a follower

it's easy enough to find a few sheep....