Is solar really four times the cost of nuclear? No, but…

[DLnyc]

18. Well thank you for this information reinforcing my point.

*->• The nuclear plant that you describe generates about three thousand times more power than one wind turbine.

the capital costs of wind PER WATT CAPACITY is much lower than nuclear. That means that 2000 500kW wind turbines go in for less that one 1000 MW nuclear plant. It turns out that 2000 relatively simple 500kW wind turbines go in for CONSIDERABLY LESS (from 4 to 10 times less, actually) than one 1000MW nuclear reactor. This is not surprising if you consider the technology involved. Also, quite obviously I think, it takes a LOT LESS to maintain 2000 500kW wind turbines that to maintain one 1000Mw nuclear reactor. Even ignoring external costs.


*->• Wind's capacity factor is about 30% - meaning it generates power about 1/3 of the time. Nuclear's is about 80%, and much of that can be planned ahead of time.

Good point! Wind is going in at $1 per watt capacity, so including time of generation, we get about $3.30 per watt. A 1000 MW nuclear plant is going in anywhere from $4 billion to $14 billion, or $4 to $14 per watt (or bit more, accepting only 80% down time):
"
The reported prices at six new pressurized water reactors are indicative of costs for that type of plant:[24]
February 2008—For two new AP1000 reactors at its Turkey Point site, Florida Power & Light calculated overnight capital cost from $2444 to $3582 per kW, which were grossed up to include cooling towers, site works, land costs, transmission costs and risk management for total costs of $3108 to $4540 per kilowatt. Adding in finance charges increased the overall figures to $5780 to $8071 per kW ($6.6 and $9.3 billion, respectively).
March 2008—For two new AP1000 reactors in Florida, Progress Energy announced that if built within 18 months of each other, the cost for the first would be $5144 per kilowatt and the second $3376/kW - total $9.4 billion. Including land, plant components, cooling towers, financing costs, license application, regulatory fees, initial fuel for two units, owner's costs, insurance, taxes, escalation, and contingencies, the total would be about $14 billion.
May 2008—For two new AP1000 reactors at the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Generating Station in South Carolina, South Carolina Electric and Gas Co. and Santee Cooper expected to pay $9.8 billion (which includes forecast inflation and owners' costs for site preparation, contingencies, and project financing).
November 2008—For two new AP1000 reactors at its Lee site, Duke Energy Carolinas raised the cost estimate to $11 billion, excluding finance and inflation, but apparently including other owners costs.
November 2008—For two new AP1000 reactors at its Bellefonte site, TVA updated its estimates for overnight capital cost estimates ranged to $2516 to $4649/kW for a combined construction cost of $5.6 to 10.4 billion (total costs of $9.9 to $17.5 billion).
April 2008 -- Georgia Power Company reached a contract agreement for two AP1000 reactors to be built at Vogtle,[25] at an estimated final cost of $14 billion plus $3 billion for necessary transmission upgrades.[26]
"
(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_nuclear_power_plants )

Figuring AP1000 at approximately 1000 MW, it's clear that capital costs are like $4 to over $14 per watt, well over $3.30 you get for wind.

And note that these prices IGNORE INSURANCE AND SIGNIFICANCE EXTERNAL COSTS LIKE WASTE DISPOSAL, SECURITY AND OCCASIONAL DISASTERS. Just as I said.

*->• While not cheaper than onshore wind, nuclear is 60% cheaper than offshore wind.

Okay, thanks, looks like we AGREE. : "While not cheaper than onshore wind, nuclear . . . ". Yes, okay, we agree, nuclear is NOT cheaper than (onshore) wind (that is, the normal, widely installed wind that one would normally be discussing). But if we suddenly switch the discussion to a controversial, largely untested technology, well, who knows? Basically, that is kind of a strawman argument. "Wind" is "onshore wind". Offshore wind is another, not really significant, subject, I would say.

*->• Wind requires natural gas backup plants, so it is not by any stretch of the imagination "carbon-free".

Yes, actually, wind is carbon-free. Each watt generated by wind is generated carbon-free. Wind is going in on top of an existing fossil infrastructure, so each wind watt replaces, does not "require" but REPLACES, a carbon watt. Saying that a wind watt is creating CO2 is quite a bit of a stretch, I am afraid. Sorry.

*->• Wind is "going up like hotcakes" because of exhorbitant subsidies (when the subsidies are withdrawn, the wind market's bottom falls out).

Yes, good point. When $50,000,000,000 of nuclear subsidies (Obama's state of the Union figure, $50 billion) are withdrawn, the nuclear bottom falls out. Wind is going up like hotcakes, as you seem to tacitly admit here, IN SPITE OF wind incentives (or "subsidies" to you, I guess) being much weaker and less dependable than those for nuclear.

*->Those are the main ones, most of the rest is wrong but I don't have the patience. Here are the real costs for energy generation:

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm

Oh, thank you! For the grand finale, you exactly document my point:

Advanced Nuclear 90 83.4 11.6 12.3 1.1 108.4
Geothermal 92 76.2 12.0 0.0 1.4 89.6
Biomass 83 53.2 14.3 42.3 1.2 111.0
Non-Dispatchable Technologies
Wind 34 70.3 13.1 0.0 3.2 86.6

So we get (according to the article YOU CITE):

Nuclear: 108.4
Wind 86.6

Wind is significantly CHEAPER, even leaving out (as the article you cite does) massive government insurance to indemnify contractors and other very significant, publicly borne, external costs like waste disposal, a large security structure and the price of planning for, and actual, disasters.

With all due respect my friend, no matter how hard you work to spin it, it's obvious, and in fact true, that wind is cheaper. For both of them, the fuel source can be treated as about zero (more so for wind than for nuclear, actually). But the technical and social costs are just massively, and obviously, much much larger for nuclear.

As I said before, you are wrong and it is hard for me not to imagine that perhaps you would know that unless your livelihood somehow depended upon your not knowing that.

And, finally, as far as your phrase "but I don't have the patience", I SOOOO know how you feel!

Peace,
-dlnyc