|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Jun 21, 2013 14:29:39 GMT 9.5
NUCLEAR POWER: Still Not Viable without Subsidieswww.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nuclear_subsidies_report.pdfThe Executive Summary begins Conspicuously absent from industry press releases and briefing memos touting nuclear power’s potential as a solution to global warming is any mention of the industry’s long and expensive history of taxpayer subsidies and excessive charges to utility ratepayers. These subsidies not only enabled the nation’s existing reactors to be built in the first place, but have also supported their operation for decades. ... A fair comparison of the available options for reducing heat-trapping carbon emissions while generating electricity requires consideration not only of the private costs of building plants and their associated infrastructure but also of the public subsidies given to the industry.I'm no economist. However, the economics of the electrical power industry is considerably different than Econ 101 economics. I encourage those interested to read this USA-centric paper so that then we might discuss its virtues and defects. Thank you in advance.
|
|
|
|
Post by jagdish on Jun 21, 2013 16:36:05 GMT 9.5
Due to historic links with weapon development, nuclear power development has been a side benefit of weapon development, particularly in the US and USSR/Russia. The cost of nuclear construction has been lower in Asia (less Japan) than in the US/West Europe/Japan. It is economically viable in China, S. Korea and India. In the US it has been regulated to death.
The middle East has decided to followed other Asian countries. The Australias can go the way of their choosing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roger Clifton on Jun 21, 2013 18:00:57 GMT 9.5
DBB has for the sake of argument, given us a link to an author with a quote urging: "comparison of the available options for reducing heat-trapping carbon emissions".
It is intellectual dishonesty to represent a token reduction in emissions as if it is a reduction of the GHGs in the atmosphere. Regardless of how "reduced" an emission is, it is nevertheless an increase in greenhouse gas levels. Yet we hear this lie over and over again, the repetition giving the illusion of veracity. Perhaps we should call it out when we hear it:
If it increases greenhouse gas levels, then it's not an option.
|
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Jun 21, 2013 21:11:06 GMT 9.5
The problem is that the competitors of nuclear power get too many subsidies (the over-regulation of nuclear should be counted as a subsidy for the fossil fuel and renewable energy industries).
|
|
|
|
Post by edireland on Jun 21, 2013 22:30:45 GMT 9.5
The reason that nuclear power is not considered viable in the modern electricity market is because of the deregulation and privatisation of the entire system.
Thanks to the expensive capital that privat utilities must rely on a power system that has its entire cost presented up front will always fare badly against something with a shorter lifespan and higher marginal operating costs.
|
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Jun 22, 2013 9:19:28 GMT 9.5
The reason that nuclear power is not considered viable in the modern electricity market is because of the deregulation and privatisation of the entire system. Thanks to the expensive capital that privat utilities must rely on a power system that has its entire cost presented up front will always fare badly against something with a shorter lifespan and higher marginal operating costs. I can't see any reason why renewable energy (which also has such capital cost loading) would fare any better under such a system than nuclear if subsidies were equal. The grid that would result under such conditions would be to keep old plants with low marginal cost running as long as possible while building low capital cost plants as replacements or expansion which come to think of it is pretty much what has been happening. But even still, if those putting up the money could be assured it'd go into service and stay in service for decades there would be utilities which would do it and banks willing to loan the money but it's hard to get money if the reactor may never be completed or allowed to operate once it's built. |
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Jun 22, 2013 13:29:43 GMT 9.5
I finished reading the Executive Summary. I find much that is flatout wrong and more than I disagree with. But I also found Award subsidies to low-carbon energy sources on the basis of a competitive bidding process across all competing technologies. Subsidies should be awarded to those approaches able to achieve emissions reductions at the lowest possible cost per unit of abatement—not on the basis of congressional earmarks for specific types of energy. Seems sensible provided the physical requirements of a reliable, on demand power grid are kept in mind at the same time.
|
|
|
|
Post by quokka on Jun 22, 2013 14:22:22 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Jun 23, 2013 12:08:33 GMT 9.5
quokka --- Thank you. From a later figure nuclear power's share is 4%.
|
|
|
|
Post by QuarkingMad on Jun 26, 2013 11:56:07 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
|
Post by grlcowan on Jun 27, 2013 9:59:18 GMT 9.5
The net subsidy hierarchy is harder to find out about, but for reasonable estimates of fossil fuel royalty rates, it yields a hierarchy where fossil fuels net pay government a lot, nuclear nets it about zero, and non-hydro renewables cost it a little. Nuclear energy replaces natural gas at $4/MMBTU, of which at least $0.50, an eighth, is government income (royalties), with uranium at $0.20/MMBTU, including a royalty fraction that I would guess is somewhat smaller than an eighth (but it hardly matters, since even if it were an eighth, it would be an eighth of something 20 times smaller). This means, for instance, that the unbearable regulatory delay of San Onofre's partial return to service ensured government would continue to get at least $56 million a year on $450 million in gas, rather than whatever it might have made on $26 million a year in mined uranium. Because gas costs about four times more in Japan, a much larger windfall came to Japanese government -- $6.6 billion per year if it takes the same one-eighth royalty -- when it forbade Japanese nuclear power operators from restarting most of their reactors. |
|
|
|
Post by edireland on Jun 28, 2013 0:15:02 GMT 9.5
Wouldn't the royalties only be payable in the country that produced the gas?
Many countries are now net importers of gas.
|
|
|
|
Post by sod on Jun 28, 2013 6:03:17 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
|
Post by QuarkingMad on Jun 28, 2013 9:56:27 GMT 9.5
This graph goes back to 1977: www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/images/pubs-images/43xxx/43993-land-figure1.pngIt is from the more current CBO testimony on energy subsidies, found here: www.cbo.gov/publication/43993In 2013 the following is the subsidy breakdown: - Renewable Energy = 45%
- Energy Efficiency = 29%
- Fossil Fuels = 20%
- Nuclear = 7%
Renewable energy still receives the lions share in the US. Where in 2012 Renewable energy contributed 2.3% to US primary energy. The question should really be, were those billions in subsidies worth the share it is contributing to primary energy? |
|
peterc
Thermal Neutron
Posts: 30
|
Post by peterc on Jun 28, 2013 15:41:49 GMT 9.5
The figures in the CBO chart seem to be absolute billions of dollars.
If they were expressed as cents per kwh produced it might be even more illuminating.
Yet more illuminating would be cents per useful kwh (i.e. produced when demand is high).
|
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Jun 28, 2013 18:01:05 GMT 9.5
The figures in the CBO chart seem to be absolute billions of dollars. If they were expressed as cents per kwh produced it might be even more illuminating. Yet more illuminating would be cents per useful kwh (i.e. produced when demand is high). 'Negawatts' would do really badly there. :-) |
|
|
|
Post by sod on Jun 29, 2013 15:50:18 GMT 9.5
This graph goes back to 1977: www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/images/pubs-images/43xxx/43993-land-figure1.pngIt is from the more current CBO testimony on energy subsidies, found here: www.cbo.gov/publication/43993In 2013 the following is the subsidy breakdown: - Renewable Energy = 45%
- Energy Efficiency = 29%
- Fossil Fuels = 20%
- Nuclear = 7%
Renewable energy still receives the lions share in the US. Where in 2012 Renewable energy contributed 2.3% to US primary energy. The question should really be, were those billions in subsidies worth the share it is contributing to primary energy? This comparison is complete garbage and massively stacked in favour of nuclear. It follows an absurd logic ("i earned more money last year than my father, so i must be more rich!") It does also focus on a type of subsidy that favours nuclear, when we actually know that nuclear got a lot of different types of subsidies. (page 24 of the pdf) www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nuclear_subsidies_report.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by sod on Jun 29, 2013 16:21:45 GMT 9.5
To give just a simple example:
(pdf, page 28)
So how about we do the same with renewables over the next 60 Years?!?
|
|
|
|
Post by sod on Jun 29, 2013 19:14:02 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
|
Post by quokka on Jun 29, 2013 20:20:01 GMT 9.5
The 10 billion for EDF appears to be a loan guarantee. It's also reported that EDF will have to pay for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by sod on Jun 29, 2013 23:51:06 GMT 9.5
The 10 billion for EDF appears to be a loan guarantee. It's also reported that EDF will have to pay for it. well, for a gift, it would be a little too much!?! The articles just confirm, what i have been saying. and it contradicts, what is constantly claimed in these discussions. Nuclear just can not work without massive subsidies. The situation in Britain is absolutely obscene: So, after 60 years in service, nuclear basically requires exactly the same subsidies as wind and solar do. The "grown up" nuclear industry basically requires 100% loan guarantee , a subsidised rate per megawatt hour that is nearly identical to what wind gets and that the people carry the full burden of risk, in the case of an accident. And the public also has to pay for the storage and handling of nuclear waste, of course. this is one heck of a "business"!!! |
|
|
|
Post by sod on Jun 30, 2013 0:23:27 GMT 9.5
Wow, nuclear demands exactly the same money as onshore wind, when the plant is finished (95):
and solar will be pretty close as well (110..)
|
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Jun 30, 2013 3:16:17 GMT 9.5
This comparison is complete garbage and massively stacked in favour of nuclear. It follows an absurd logic ("i earned more money last year than my father, so i must be more rich!") Are you just unable to accept that nuclear isn't oversubsidised while renewable crap is? It does also focus on a type of subsidy that favours nuclear, when we actually know that nuclear got a lot of different types of subsidies. (page 24 of the pdf) Subsidies like basic physics research with no possible application to terrestrial power generation (yes, a lot of the R&D 'subsidy' attributed to nuclear power is of that nature). To give just a simple example: (pdf, page 28) So how about we do the same with renewables over the next 60 Years?!? If we do as you suggest we'll only end up wasting a lot of money (unless you put the money into space launch so that you could put your solar collectors where they'd actually do some good). The 10 billion for EDF appears to be a loan guarantee. It's also reported that EDF will have to pay for it. well, for a gift, it would be a little too much!?! Loan guarantee means it'd only be paid if the power plant doesn't end up being built, if there were no anti-nuclear movement it wouldn't be necessary. The articles just confirm, what i have been saying. and it contradicts, what is constantly claimed in these discussions. Nuclear just can not work without massive subsidies. No, they don't, in a truly free market with nothing subsidised nuclear would be about the only thing anyone used and back when regulations were sensible we weer indeed heading in that direction. The "grown up" nuclear industry Nuclear is actually less grown up than any other electricity generation industry, it also has a lot more potential for improvement than those do. basically requires 100% loan guarantee , Because there's a chance that the reactor may never be allowed to operate even after billions have been spent building it, if you don't like the loan guarantee you shouldn't be campaigning against nuclear power but against the anti-nuclear movement which created the need for it, if they were defeated then there wouldn't be any need to guarantee the loans. and that the people carry the full burden of risk, in the case of an accident. People carry the full burden of risk for everything, it's just that the risk and the consequences of accidents are lower with nuclear. And the public also has to pay for the storage and handling of nuclear waste, Which is relatively benign when compared with the waste from solar panel production along with having the added advantage of getting less dangerous if you just leave it alone. Wow, nuclear demands exactly the same money as onshore wind, when the plant is finished (95): and solar will be pretty close as well (110..) Does that take account of the problems wind and solar cause for the rest of the grid? problems which have to be paid for by operating more reliable sources at less than optimum. |
|
|
|
Post by edireland on Jun 30, 2013 3:31:49 GMT 9.5
sod seems to be under the impression that we can trade in all the research done on nuclear technology to get our money back..... that money is already gone so we can't really count it against nuclear. And the consequences of a nuclear accident are not very severe at all, for instance the cheap response to the Fukushima accident would have been to simply buy up all the farmland around the plant and put fences up around it, then sit on it for the next 300 years until the Strontium and Caesium had decayed away or simply turned it into a wildlife park. That was considered politically unacceptable and so absurdly large amounts of money are need to "decontaminate" things to an insanely great degree because the government demands it. When an insurer is on the hook for hysteria-dictated kneejerk reactions of governments with one eye on the next election they are going to shy away from such insurance. And as to EDF subsidies this is partially to do with the fact that the EPR is a disaster of a reactor but naked jingoism on the part of the French Government won't let them build anything else and partially because the only alternative to nuclear that has any chance of getting built in comparable quantities is offshore wind, which is so much more expensive that EDF can hold out for a brilliant deal with no threat of losing the business. Wow, nuclear demands exactly the same money as onshore wind, when the plant is finished (95): ~3GWe would be equivalent to 15GWe of wind nameplate capacity, which is ~750 several hundred metre tall 20MWe wind turbines, and a huge industrial park full of massive sodium-sulfur batteries storing all the power on a diurnal and probably seasonal basis. Find me a place in Britain you can build that practically. You might not be familiar with just how closely packed Britain is, but people don't tend to like living in the shadows of things like that. and solar will be pretty close as well (110..) Perhaps I haven't been paying attention but I don't recall an Alps sized mountain range appearing from nowhere in the last few years. There is nowhere for new hydro plants to be built, the Scottish Hydro Board already exploited the entire available capacity in the 50s. So the cost of new hydro is meaningless. Biomass is effectively the same as the coal in terms of environmental damage. And solar reaching £110/MWh? lol. Considering that the subsidy alone is still far larger than that I have to doubt that it will get that cheap within the next 7 years. Those estimates are normally derived using 0% capital and repayment periods that are found only in panel manufacturer-made brochures. EDIT: And for the record, at ~£100/MWh and 90% capacity factor, the pair of reactors would turn out £2.365bn of electricity every year. That demonstrates just how ridiculously corrupt the privatised electricity business is. |
|
|
|
Post by sod on Jun 30, 2013 8:30:10 GMT 9.5
Are you just unable to accept that nuclear isn't oversubsidised while renewable crap is? sorry. but you are contradicted by facts. Nuclear is asking for 95 pounds, and that is what wind will get. That is the same amount of subsidies!!!! I guess battery and solar would love to have some basic physics research related to them. It is rather obvious that nuclear would not exist in such an environment, as noone would have done the basic physics research that we spoke about . Nuclear power simply would not exist without subsidies! |
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Jun 30, 2013 18:01:09 GMT 9.5
I guess battery and solar would love to have some basic physics research related to them. But there really isn't much new physics to discover there, just applications of what we already know (and the same is true of nuclear as well). It is rather obvious that nuclear would not exist in such an environment, as noone would have done the basic physics research that we spoke about . Nuclear power simply would not exist without subsidies! Fission was discovered with relatively little money spent, had a world war not intervened it's quite possible that nuclear power would have come about without a massive government programme, it just would've taken a bit longer. |
|
|
|
Post by edireland on Jun 30, 2013 22:48:25 GMT 9.5
If it was a mass state programme the nuclear industries costs would be nearer ~£30/MWh not £100.
We are just in the grip of energy profiteering.
|
|
|
|
Post by quokka on Jul 1, 2013 0:15:50 GMT 9.5
It is rather obvious that nuclear would not exist in such an environment, as noone would have done the basic physics research that we spoke about . Nuclear power simply would not exist without subsidies! This is all getting rather silly. From the point of the discovery of fission, the vast potential of realizing E=mc^2 must have been abundantly clear. Subsidies or no subsidies, nuclear power had become inevitable. History determined how that played out. Discovery of fission: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission#Discovery_of_nuclear_fission |
|
|
|
Post by Greg Simpson on Jul 1, 2013 2:04:52 GMT 9.5
I am dubious that even a new coal plant could be profitable at under 50 pounds/MWh. It is really hard to compete with old plants that have been paid off long ago. This will be the first plant built in the UK in years, and I note that subsequent plants are expected to be cheaper. I am not sure I believe that, though. What kinds of safety regulations will they add in the future?
|
|
|
|
Post by edireland on Jul 1, 2013 2:58:50 GMT 9.5
I am dubious that even a new coal plant could be profitable at under 50 pounds/MWh. It is really hard to compete with old plants that have been paid off long ago. This will be the first plant built in the UK in years, and I note that subsequent plants are expected to be cheaper. I am not sure I believe that, though. What kinds of safety regulations will they add in the future? It depends on the assumptions you add. I based my calculations on repaying the construction loan over the entire 60 year design life of the plant and using gilt-based capital with 60 year maturities issued especially. Ie. things that can only be done by the state. |
|
