A new study of contemporary nuclear industry cost projections, previously unavailable to the public, provides new insight into a potential path breaking cost trend for the next generation of advanced nuclear plants, writes Dan Yurman, specialized nuclear energy reporter who runs the blog NeutronBytes.
According to the study, advanced nuclear companies are forecasting cost targets at nearly half the cost of conventional nuclear plants, dramatically improving the value proposition of nuclear energy and presenting a highly costâcompetitive alternative to other baseload options.
The peer reviewed study, undertaken by the Energy Innovation Reform Project (EIRP), with data collection and analysis conducted by the Energy Options network (EON) on its behalf, compiled extensive data from eight advanced nuclear companies that are actively pursuing commercialization of plants at least 250 MW in size.  Full Text of the study (PDF file) here
Skepticism about the cost of future nuclear technologies is understandably high, given the infamously unmet promise of energy âtoo cheap to meterâ
The anonymized findings signal a potential end to the economic downsides of nuclear energy. In fact, at the lower end of the potential cost range, these plants could present the lowest cost generation options available.
âThis study signals the potential for a new chapter in the role of nuclear to address the global demand for economic energy solutions,â said Jeff Merrifield, Partner at Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP and former commissioner, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
âAt these costs, nuclear would be effectively competitive with any other option for power generation. At the same time, this could enable a significant expansion of the nuclear footprint to the parts of the world that need clean energy the mostâand can least afford to pay high price premiums for it.â
The companies included in the study were Elysium Industries, General Electric (no information supplied by the company; study used publicly available information) Moltex Energy, NuScale Power, Terrestrial Energy, ThorCon Power, Transatomic Power and Xâenergy.
The study focused on companies developing reactor and plant sizes potentially able to play a significant role in utilityâscale power generation.
The study found several common costâreduction strategies that the surveyed companies are pursuing to achieve these drastically reduced cost projections, including:
- Simpler and standardized plant designs
- Incorporation of factoryâ and shipyardâbased manufacturing
- Modularization
- Lower materials requirements
- Reduced scope for engineering, procurement, and construction firms
- Shorter construction time
- Higher power density
- Higher efficiency
âUnderstanding the potential economics of advanced nuclear is important for investors and policymakers alike,â concluded Samuel Thernstrom, Executive Director, EIRP.
âMost advanced reactor companies have raised only a fraction of the capital necessary for commercial demonstration of their designs. This study should help dispel common misconceptions on costs and help clarify how this industry intends to compete going forward.â
Study merged apples & oranges
Advanced nuclear technologies are controversial. Many people believe they could be a panacea for the worldâs energy problems, while others claim that they are still decades away from reality and much more complicated and costly than conventional nuclear technologies.
Resolving this debate requires an accurate and current understanding of the increasing movement of technology development out of national nuclear laboratories and into private industry. Because the work of the private companies covered in the study is proprietary, they have relatively little incentive to make information public, and the absence of credible information about these technologies and their potential costs gives credence to the claims of nuclear skeptics.
Advanced nuclear technologies represent a dramatic evolution from conventional reactors in terms of safety and nonproliferation, and the cost estimates from some advanced reactor companiesâif accurateâsuggest that these technologies could revolutionize the way we think about the cost, availability, and environmental consequences of energy generation.
Skepticism about the cost of future nuclear technologies is understandably high, given the infamously unmet promise of energy âtoo cheap to meter.â
Assessing the claims of technology developers on a standardized basis, as much as possible, is vitally important for any fact-based discussion about the future cost of nuclear. Previous work by the Energy Options Network (EON) found that each company had its own approach to estimating plant costs, making true âapples-to-applesâ comparisons with conventional pressurized water reactors (PWRs) impossible.
This study was designed to address that deficiency. Comparing the cost of future nuclear technologies to current designs (or other generation technologies) requires capturing cost data for advanced nuclear plants in a standardized, comprehensive manner.
Using the plant cost accounting framework developed by the Generation IV International Forum, EON created a cost model for this study that includes all potential cost categories for an nth-of-a-kind (NOAK) nuclear plant. It includes default values for each cost category (based on previous cost studies conducted at national laboratories), and provides capability for companies to incorporate new business models and delivery strategies.
Using this model, EON worked with leading advanced reactor companies to obtain reliable, standardized cost projections for their NOAK plants. Advanced nuclear companies that are actively pursuing commercialization of plants at least 250 MW in size were invited to join this study; the eight that were able to participate are listed in table 1 (above). The intent was to focus on reactor and plant sizes that could have a significant role in utility-scale power generation.
Editorâs Note
This article was first published on Dan Yurmanâs blog Neutron Bytes and is republished here with permission.
[adrotate banner=”78″]
Helmut Frik says
Hmm, half of the costs of Hinkley Point is still far from being competitve in the market.
Josh says
Hinkley Point C utilizes Generation III technology, which is not the topic of this article.
Bob Wallace says
Relevant cost comparison.
The bench rules it admissible….
;o)
Nigel West says
These days most ships are assembled using large modules built concurrently in different locations allowing multiple work faces. Nuclear submarines are built in the UK and US using modules. The same techniques could be used to build smaller new nuclear stations. Factory built modules transported to site and assembled there using ship yard techniques. That should reduce construction times significantly. The UK’s first generation Magnox stations were built in the 1950s using modules and ship yard cranes.
Bas Gresnigt says
Read the AP1000 notes of ~2006.
Cheap and lower costs due to:
– more factory produced modules;
– more series production as many such modules are highly similar;
– reduced construction times thanks to factory production.
While the VC Summer reactors were number 7 and 8, similar costs and construction milestone overruns as in the past…
Bob Wallace says
Duke Energy, one of the US’s major energy companies, has just thrown in the nuclear towel. They abandoned plans to build reactors in South Carolina and Florida.
Apparently the companies that own many US reactors see no promise in the AP1000 generating affordable electricity.
Nigel West says
The problems with V C Summer were more commercial, than technical. They were:
– Commercial risk of possibly losing the Production Tax Credit through not meeting a deadline.
– NRC causing regulatory problems and shifting NRC requirements e.g. adding the need for aircraft crash protection at extra cost.
– starting construction before the design was adequately progressed.
https://clearpath.org/jays-take/what-policymakers-can-learn-after-v-c-summer
It will likely be revived at some point, like Watts Bar Unit 2.
Bob Wallace says
Financial.
Retail rates had already been raised six times in order to take money from customers and give it to the utility to build their reactors. Rates had increased 30% and we about to go up again. Rates would have need to be jacked up more times had the reactors been finished.
The electricity was not needed. Planners failed to see the impact on demand that was happening due to efficiency. Finishing would have meant spending billions more on plants for which there was no need.
The wholesale cost per MWh would have been higher than the retail cost by the time the reactors could have been brought online. (Unless they really jacked up their reverse Robinhood routine.)
And, yet again, the nuclear industry pulled their “Trust us, we’re the nuclear industry. We’ll give you affordable electricity if you only allow us one more chance”.
Watts Bar was 80% complete. Based on the relatively small amount of work left to do TVA decided to finish WB2. Summer 2 and 3 are much less completed.
onesecond says
Oh dear, startups saying they will have the best thing ever is now made into a “study”. I guess GE as the only established company just couldn’t drag down the “rainbow high in the sky” estimates of these startups. I also have to say that the name ThorCon is pure genius.
Bob Wallace says
Over a half century of promising that nuclear would become affordable.
And over a half century of failing to make it so.
Color me highly skeptical.
In the meantime the cost of wind, solar, and storage continue to fall making the target for new nuclear’s success harder and harder to reach.
If someone wants to give this a try with private money, I’m fine with that. As long as they also put in the money up front for permanent storage of the radioactive waste they create and get a full liability policy. Let’s not use tax dollars to pay for this very long shot nor put ourselves in the position of having to clean up the mess these guys might make.
Let them crowd source their idea and all the nuclear advocates could put their money where their letter punching fingers are.
Nigel West says
It’s only in recent years that the cost of large scale reactors has become an issue. Furthermore the cost concerns have only been with new build in the west based on western designs. Nuclear new build is affordable elsewhere e.g. KEPCO and Chinese plants.
Completing a part built project and refurbishing nuclear plants at TVA in the US is proving cost effective too:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2017/08/22/theres-more-than-one-way-to-get-nuclear-power/#307d4bbb418b
In the US the EPA’s Rick Perry’s is clearly keen on nuclear too. Too soon to predict what this means for nuclear power in the US.
Ontario’s Bruce Power supplies nuclear power to Ontario at a very competitive price of 6.6ct/kWh, only hydro is cheaper, and capacity is being expanded to 6.4GW.
Closing 17 reactors in France and replacing the lost output with wind/solar is likely to be far more costly than refurbishing the reactors. Only fake news and fake science put about by antis says otherwise:
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/11/experts-think-frances-plans-to-close-up-to-17-nuclear-reactors-by-2025-wont-end-well/
In the UK, the money for new nuclear investment is not coming from Government. Also new nuclear plants have to fully fund their waste and decommissioning costs.
Helmut Frik says
Well the UAE have tired KEPCO reactors, and although that’s the poster child for nuclear fanboys has decided that further expansion will go in wind and solar pwoer, not in nuclear. And the cost problems whith huge cost overruns exists for a long time, e.g. see fhe first plants in vogtle.
The daily caller is a classical fake news site, not worth commenting. 6,6 ct/kWh is signinficant above new wind or solar in germany, like in many places in the world. So keeping old nuclear running is already too expensive.
Nigel west says
Around 5.6GW of nuclear base load capacity relative to the UAE’s peak demand of about 18GW will underpin supply and system security. The inertia of the steam turbines will maintain system stability. Solar can’t provide inertia and wind only promises too but has not been proven to be adequate.
Bob Wallace says
“Solar canât provide inertia and wind only promises too but has not been proven to be adequate.”
However wind and solar plus storage….
Helmut Frik says
VDE tested wind power and found inertia more than adequate. What remains is some regulation work, it’s not a technical issue anywhere any more.
Nigel West says
Loss of inertia associated with growth in asynchronous generators (wind turbines) and loss of synchronous plant is a technical issue looming for the UK’s National Grid. Grid is currently running a project (EFCC) looking at how to maintain system stability with declining synchronous plant.
Helmut – National Grid’s work on this issue may interest you:
http://www2.nationalgrid.com/UK/Our-company/Innovation/NIC/EFCC/
http://www2.nationalgrid.com/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=8589935426
Germany is part of the European synchronous grid so has access to machines in surrounding countries to support Germany. Germany has plenty of synchronous plant that could be part loaded too. Whereas the UK’s grid is an ‘island’ system.
Lack of inertia means Grids have to operate much closer to the ‘cliff edge’ in terms of collapse. Asynchronous machines are ‘decoupled’ so don’t respond to frequency changes unless they are equipped with sophisticated control systems all centrally coordinated. The current fleet of machines would need reengineering to provide the response. Other new sources of fast response include batteries of course.
Helmut Frik says
yes it is a pity that people in UK so rarely are capable of foreign languages, because same topics have ben handeled in germany 10-15 years ago.
“Asynchronus” generators, which ones do you mean? Wind and solar power rarely use asynchronus generation, only Gen III wind turbines use that to some extend. But they are not so frequent, and also can provide inertia independent of the way their generator works, but less than Gen IV turibnes, so only on about the same level than ususl synchronus generators.
The only point is, that inertia is often not required in the grid codes, so the wind turbines are not ordered with that software feature.
Nigel West says
“Wind and solar power rarely use asynchronus generation.”
Not according to the Danish Wind Industry Association – most wind turbines use asyncronous/induction generators.
http://xn--drmstrre-64ad.dk/wp-content/wind/miller/windpower%20web/en/tour/wtrb/async.htm
The reason it wasn’t specified is because wind turbine makers couldn’t provide inertia. Only in recent years have wind turbines become available with synthetic inertia capability.
TSOs are now having to design complex frequency control systems to accommodate high wind penetration. In the mean time TSOs have to pay synchronous generators to be available as they don’t trust wind/solar to maintain a stable grid.
Bob Wallace says
Solar is generated as direct current. It has to be converted to AC. Cycle rate is determined by the inverting system.
With the proper amount of communication between sites solar AC could lock into any frequency desired.
Residential inverters read and lock to grid frequencies. Stand alone systems produce some very consistent waveforms.
” In the mean time TSOs have to pay synchronous generators to be available as they donât trust wind/solar to maintain a stable grid.”
We’re in a transition. That means that we’ll have do some things on a temporary basis while we move sufficiently to the next phase.
Nigel West says
Bob, solar pv doesn’t provide inertia. You should research inertia and why it is so important for a transmission system.
Helmut Frik says
@nigel, the differnece between “does not” (today) and “can not” is known?
Bob Wallace says
I know how the term “inertia” is used in grid operation. My comment was about frequency regulation.
Solar will not supply inertia unless the Sun is shining and some percentage of the potential output is being curtailed. But that’s true for all other generators. They have to be run under full output so that there will be additional generation which can be brought rapidly online.
“Although renewable energy sources without special controls do not contribute to the system inertia, the stored kinetic
energy in wind turbines can be used to support the frequency.
Solar panels on the other hand store no kinetic energy but only a limited amount of energy in the DC capacitor, but they also can be controlled, in combination with a battery unit to support the frequency control.
Both wind farms and solar PV plants can also potentially contribute to frequency support in case they are curtailed. In
the following section, the inertia of wind turbines is compared with that of conventional power plants.
Next, the different control methods that can be used to support the frequency
control by renewables are further elaborated.”
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1cd1/9e3ae4b3ff6919570cf6faa693a13d21652a.pdf
Nigel West says
Helmut,
To cover a big imbalance in demand and generation, sustained response is also required from part loaded generators before the TSO redispatches generation.
Part loading renewables is possible, but might be expensive. Part loaded plant usually receives payments for lost profit from the TSO when instructed to hold reserve by part loading.
For renewables like solar enjoying high FITs, the lost profit through being required to part load would be substantial. Then a TSO is likely to choose conventional plant to hold reserve.
Helmut Frik says
This is simply being sorted out by market. Which means that the world is not as simple here, there are many factors. EG during curtailment times due to grid constraints, renewables can cupply positive primary reserve at zero costs for their area. At other times it will require exact calculation, since renewagles here do not get a fixed feed in tarif any more, but a market premium for all bigger systems in the market. The market premium is getting smaller and smaller in the recent tenders. At times when only few thermal plants are at the market, the ramp rates of the remaining thermal plants might be to small to win all contracts for primary reserves, so some contracts are likely to go to producers of renewable power. E.G german biogas plants can ramp up or down several GW at almost every moment during a year in a minute or less, without significant wear&tear.
Helmut Frik says
The only generation which uses Asynchronus generators – + Inverters which overlay the output of the Asynchronus generator to produce a 50 Hz output from the variable frequency output of the Asynchronus generator are the Gen III- Turbines. Gen 1+2 worked with fixed rotor speed and synchronus generators, Gen 3 with asynchronus generator and partly inverter, gen IV uses synchronus generators with variable speed and full inverters.
The stupidity of not trusting synchronus generators when wind turns the shaft instead of steam also lead to the 50,2 Hz Problem in germany, which did cost the utility quite a ot of money. Seems in germany they have learned from that fault while in UK they prefere to repeat it with inertia
Germany still lacks a market regulation for purchasing inertia, but when it comes wind and thermal power both will participate, most likely wind will dominate it with the higher amounts of MWs wind turbines can provide – with the right software version (the feature must be switched on). Solar systems would need bigger capacitors or batteries, when they are present the solar inverters can also supply huge amounts of inertia to the grid.
The difference is, with thermal power plants and synchronus generators, the inertia came as a sideffect of the generator, it was there unavoidabely, but also cold hardly be increased, and there was always the danger of the generator going out of sync when the load angle reached 90°, which results in huge grid distortions (and often in generator and turbine flying threw the power station)
With inverters, the inertia can be programmed in software, within the thermal limits of the inverter, and there is no danger of the inverter going out of sync.
The document you referenced is a bit old: “Updated 19 September 2003 “
Nigel West says
Synthetic inertia will require sophisticated control centrally by TSOs. It’s no good just fitting inverters with batteries and capacitors, and feathering wind turbine blades. The equipments have to be controlled centrally by TSOs. National Grid’s EFCC project is attempting to design a system to coordinate and control synthetic inertia providers. The reaction times to disturbances need to be much faster than with synchronous generation, otherwise grids can easily go unstable. Also over compensation could easily make a disturbance worse not better and island parts of a grid.
If you are suggesting synthetic inertia will be better than synchronous machines that’s far from true.
Part loaded sync. generators provide plenty of secondary response through governor action. Large sync. generators have protection systems to prevent overspeed and rarely pole slip on grid systems.
Helmut Frik says
@ Nigel, a) you mix up inertia and primary regulation.
b) synthetic inertia needs as much and as little central control as classical inertia of synchronus generators. It just needs some standards to define what is required from the systems, and also how this service is tendered, since inverters can come with or without inertia. Problem of classical inertia of synchronus machines is that it does come somehow, but not neccesarily exactly as you want it, it comes from a swinging (magnetig) spring – mass systems, which induces als swinging in the grid when being used. The behaviour of synchronus generators is good enough to keep grids stable, but it is far frombeing perfect from the point of vew what behacviour would be wanted if it could be choosen by design. With inverters the engineers have all freedome to form the inertia behaviour exactly according to grids needs. And yes, they can react much faster than the synchronus machines, which first have to build up a certain angle between magnetig field and rotor orientation to inject more power into the grid to stabilise it. So there are possibilities to awoid the swinging of the grid which you can see today in case of events in grids dominated by thermal power plants.
Nigel West says
Helmut, I think your position is too optimistic in terms of synthetic inertia from inverter based technology on renewables being able to substitute for synchronous generation.
At present international experience shows synthetic inertia/fast frequency response (FFR) cannot provide a complete substitute for physical inertia supplied by conventional plant – so it’s not possible to operate a large grid just on FFR.
https://www.aemo.com.au/-/media/Files/Electricity/NEM/Security_and_Reliability/Reports/FPSS—International-Review-of-Frequency-Control.pdf
I appreciate Germany’s growing renewables fleet means Germany has to be optimistic though that solutions can be found. Although the problem is some decades away as Germany is tied into a grid system which has plenty of inertia from rotating plant.
Helmut Frik says
Nigel, again actually in use possible by the systems. Solutions have been found already. E.g. test runs have been made by VDE already >10 years agu, (which is why the papers are not online accessible anymore on the VDE homepage).
The only problem are market rules / standards. So far power supply and inertia supply could not be sold independent, so there was no market for inertia. And the quality of inertia was as it was, it could not be changed. Today power supply and inertia come unbundeled. Existing battery systems in germany, living from selling grid services, provide inertia without power generation, others provide power generation without inertia. Inertia can be shapend in any way you want. So it is neccesry to define what is wanted. It is zero problem to deliver as much or more inertia than from conventional thermal plant, and in higher quality. There is only the assumption of a problem among nuclear fanboy groups. Not among engineers. Engineers work on the neccesary standards.
Nigel West says
Helmut, VDE’s tests and engineering standards have not solved the matter. Also it is nothing to do with markets and unbundling inertia from generation. Fundamentally TSO’s world wide know large grids cannot operate securely without synchronous machines.
Indeed Denmark has just installed large synchronous condensors to cope with high levels of wind generation. Denmark would not have wasted money on these plants If inverters on wind turbines could run their grid.
http://www.ptd.siemens.de/article_1506.pdf
I’ve also shown you a detailed technical study undertaken for Australia by power system engineering consultants that examined world wide experience on the matter of high renewables penetration and the frequency control issues. You are ignoring that so I can only assume you don’t understand power system transmission systems.
Bob Wallace says
“Indeed Denmark has just installed large synchronous condensors to cope with high levels of wind generation. Denmark would not have wasted money on these plants If inverters on wind turbines could run their grid.”
Wasted?
If Denmark installed mechanical storage (synchronous condensers – spinning mass storage) then they must have thought that to be the most economical way to deal with fluctuations on the grid.
Other grids are using batteries and requiring wind/solar farms to provide those services.
http://reneweconomy.com.au/ge-grids-dont-need-rely-synchronous-generation-89161/
Denmark has added a very large amount of wind to their grid and have one of the three lowest wholesale rates in Europe. (The other two countrie have huge hydro resources.)
A certain other country that has a very large fleet of paid off reactors has a much higher wholesale electricity rate than Denmark’s.
Helmut Frik says
Nigel, I have explaind you all the technical details, including a lot your references have been missing. Why danmark is requiring synchronius condensors might be simply that changing regulations is sometimes more difficult than building some hardware. Or that some old fashioned responsible, maybe thinking like you, did not want to give away frequency control to third party operators outside the company, and prefered to wast some millions. Like with the 50,2Hz problem in germany.
Here you can read more about it. Main caus: pre VSC-HVDC- interconnections and many Gen 1 and Gen2 Wind turbines from the 1970’s to 1990’s. Need for synchronus condensors will go away with VSC-HVDC-converters, and new gen IV wind turbines: https://www.ieee-pes.org/presentations/gm2015/PESGM2015P-003046.pdf
Nigel West says
….it’s 6.6 Canadian ct./kWh which is about 4.5 Euro ct./kWh. Which is in line with Germany’s recent auctions.
http://www.brucepower.com/about-us/life-extension/
“In 2014 the Ontario government closed their last coal plant, in what is considered the largest clean-air initiative in North America. Bruce Power, in returning Units 1-4 to service over the past decade, provided the government with 70% of the carbon-free energy it needed to shut down coal.”
Bob Wallace says
Someone wrote a paper proving that bumblebees can’t fly.
When someone builds a rector in a developed western country that produces electricity for less than $0.10/kWh let us know.
Until then I’m going to watch bumblebees flying around my flowers.
Bob Wallace says
“Itâs only in recent years that the cost of large scale reactors has become an issue. ”
The US quit building reactors in the 1970s and early 1980s based solely on the cost of reactors.
” Nuclear new build is affordable elsewhere e.g. KEPCO and Chinese plants.”
It’s less expensive to build reactors in countries with very low labor rates, government financing, and incomplete cost reporting. In China, like what happened in France when they built their nuclear fleet, there is no open, transparent accounting.
“Completing a part built project and refurbishing nuclear plants at TVA in the US is proving cost effective too:”
The Watts Bar 2 reactor was 80% complete when work stopped over 40 years ago. Finishing the work seems cost effective but it doesn’t tell you the real cost of the reactor.
Take the money spent building the first 80%, restate it in 2017 dollars, and calculate the ‘opportunity loss’ for that capital that was stranded for all those years. Then add in the $4 to $4.5 billion it took to complete the last 20%. There’s a lot of money sunk in that ancient design.
—-
An aside – never trust anything James Conca prints. He has been caught many times shading/distorting facts in order to advocate for nuclear energy. In the linked article Conca states…
“A 1,500 MW solar array would cost over $10 billion.”
1,500 MW is 1,500,000,000 watts. 1.5 billion watts.
The average cost of installed utility solar with fixed mounting is $1/watt. At $1/watt 1.5 billion watts of solar would cost $1.5 billion.
The average cost of installed utility solar with single axis tracking is $1.08/watt. At $1.08/watt 1.5 billion watts of solar would cost $1.62 billion.
” 1,200 new MW wind turbines would cost about $2.5 billion”
No, about $1.9 billion. Not as big a “mistake” as his solar claim.
—
“Closing 17 reactors in France and replacing the lost output with wind/solar is likely to be far more costly than refurbishing the reactors. ”
You do recognize that refurbishment would increase the cost of electricity coming out of France’s reactors over what it now is. What you don’t report is the current price of France’s nuclear electricity.
âProduction costs from the existing fleet are heading higher over the medium-term,â Franceâs Cour des Comptes said in a report to parliament published today.
The report, which updates findings in a January 2012 report, said that in 2012 the Court calculated the cost of production of the current fleet for 2010, which amounted to EUR 49.5 per megawatt-hour.
Using the same method for the year 2013 the cost was EUR 59.8/MWh, an increase of 20.6 percent over three years.
http://www.nucnet.org/all-the-news/2014/05/27/france-s-state-auditor-says-edf-s-nuclear-costs-are-increasing
France has wholesale electricity prices that are more than 20% higher than Germany’s and 70% higher than Denmark’s.
“In the UK, the money for new nuclear investment is not coming from Government.”
No money comes “from Government”. All the money a government spends comes from citizens. The only issue is whether the money spent on nuclear comes directly from the ratepayers or flows through government books on its way to the destination.
—-
The Daily Caller is a site with a far right bias and a reputation for being untrustworthy. It’s right in there with Murdoch’s outlets.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-caller/
Nigel West says
“You do recognise that refurbishment would increase the cost of electricity coming out of Franceâs reactors over what it now is.”
According to France’s Cour de Compte, refurbishment will have a limited affect on production costs. Note that the costs will be spread over many years. Also, reactor refurbishment typically boosts output capacity which is a bonus:
“In February 2016 the Court of Audit estimated that EdFâs Grand Carenage reactor life extension program to 2030, and including âŹ25 billion operating costs, would come to about âŹ100 billion. Despite uncertainties identified to date, estimated at approximately âŹ13.3 billion, the effects of this program on the production cost of nuclear electricity are limited.â
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/france.aspx
The Court went on to say early closure of reactors would likely have a much greater effect on production costs and an assessment was needed. Which is to be expected for a big company like EDF that operates a large portfolio of plant if production decreases. Hence higher nuke production costs and paying for a massive renewables build to cover the lost nuke output as a result of closing c. 17 reactors prematurely will only push up prices for electricity consumers in France.
_
“France has wholesale electricity prices that are more than 20% higher than Germanyâs and 70% higher than Denmarkâs.”
Wholesale prices are not the issue, it’s the cost to the end customer that matters. In Germany and Denmark retail electricity prices are the highest in Europe. German domestic prices have risen 90% since 2000 driven mainly by the EEG surcharge. What hits the pocket counts. High taxes are typical of European socialist governments adding to the pain consumers must feel over the high prices in Denmark and Germany.
_
“The only issue is whether the money spent on nuclear comes directly from the ratepayers or flows through government books on its way to the destination.”
In Europe ‘ratepayers’ are known as ‘consumers’ of electricity. Consumers are not paying one penny to construct Hinkley Point C, neither is the UK Government using tax payer money. Construction funding is being provided by EDF and their Chinese partner. All the construction risk sits with them, not consumers. Only when HPC commissions will consumers start paying for the energy produced. Private companies very likely will finance advanced/SMR reactors too.
Helmut Frik says
Making a too high price just a limited amount higher by refurbishment makes a uncompetitive power station even more uncompetitive. new wind and solar in germany and france produce power much cheaper than the nuclear fleet in france, this will become worse with refurbishment. EDF will loose more money with every year they keep their nuclear fleet running.
Bob Wallace says
Nigel, you know very well that high electricity prices in Germany and Denmark are due to taxes. Not due to the cost of generating electricity in those countries.
You know that France has higher wholesale electricity prices than do Germany and Denmark. You also know that the reason that France has high electricity prices is due to France’s nuclear fleet which has turned out to be expensive to maintain.
You know that whether the high price of Hinkley is paid via taxes or electricity rates the money will come out of the pockets of UK citizens.
You know all these things but you keep posting as if you have no knowledge of obvious facts.
Nigel West says
Bob, there clearly is a strong correlation between high retail electricity prices in Germany and Denmark and renewables. In Germany at least 40% of the taxes are because of renewables. German industry is complaining about high power prices and losing business to surrounding countries as only large companies enjoy the subsidies that retail customers are shouldered with covering.
You know too that wholesale power prices are not relevant where low marginal costs/subsidised renewables have screwed up the wholesale markets.
Helmut Frik says
A high correlation can happen when one causes the other, or when both have a common cause.
High taxes on power and the wish to reduce power consumpion and the switch to renewables have a common cause in mentality.
Bob Wallace says
Yes there is a inverse relation between the wholesale and retail rates for electricity in Germany.
People who installed solar under a FiT program were guaranteed a fixed price per kWh. Their extra electricity gets sold to the grid at wholesale rates and then the difference between wholesale and their FiT rate is paid via charges to retail customers.
As the wholesale rate goes down the solar rebate cost goes up.
40%? In 2013 it was 18% of the retail rate. I’d need to see some documentation before accepting 40%.
Renewables have screwed up wholesale rates in Germany. That’s a fact. Bringing inexpensive renewables online has knocked the heck out of wholesale prices.
I’m not sure why you’d argue that higher wholesale prices were good. Well, someone with financial interests in the fossil fuel or nuclear industries would be unhappy with dropping wholesale prices.
Hans says
Correlation is not causation.
We have been through this before. In Denmark only 9% of the electricity price is due the renewable energy surcharge. In Germany it is 23% but this is mainly due to legacy costs.
Not investing in renewables now because Germany is still paying high FiTs to older systems is like not buying a cheap and great LCD television because your neighbour is still paying off his one that he bought when LCD TVs where still a new and expensive.
In Germany energy intensive industries are exempt from the renewable energy surcharge, at the same time they profit from low wholesale prices due to renewables. Not much reason to complain.
Mark kautsky says
Rick Perry is DOE secretary, by the way…
Bob Wallace says
One of our many current problems.
Governor Goodhair didn’t even know that the DOE was in charge of maintaining the US’s nuclear weapons until after he accepted the job.