Steel Liner Installation Begins At Chinese Nuclear Reactor (EPR).

[NNadir]

The initial section of the steel liner of the reactor building at unit 1 of the Taishan nuclear power plant in Guangdong province, China has been lifted into place. Other sections will be laid on top to form part of the unit's containment building.

The first prefabricated module of the steel liner - with a diameter of over 40 metres and 5 metres high and weighing some 115 tonnes - was lifted into place on 20 March using an 800-tonne crawler crane. The operation took two hours and 40 minutes, Guangdong Nuclear Power Company (CGNPC) reported...

...Areva is constructing two 1650 MWe EPRs at Taishan under contracts signed in November 2007. The units are modelled on the EPR currently being built at Flamanville in France. Construction of the first Taishan EPR began in October 2009 and the units are scheduled to start up in 2013 and 2015, respectively.

Electricité de France (EdF) and CGNPC have created a joint venture - Guangdong Taishan Nuclear Power Joint Venture Co Ltd (TNPC) - to co-own and operate the two Taishan reactors. EdF holds 30% of the joint venture company.

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Steel_liner_installation_starts_at_Chinese_EPR-0104105.html">Steel liner installation starts at Chinese EPR.

When completed after the four year construction program, the first reactor will produce more Energy than the entire nation of Denmark has been able to produce in its 32 year old wind turbine building program.

The second reactor will make the complex equal to more than two Danish wind energy programs.

This is a function of the fact that the reactors will have a capacity utilization of greater than 90%, meaning there is nothing fraudulent in discussing in terms of Megawatts.

There is no word yet on whether EDF, GCNPC, TNPC, or Areva have decided to go out of business because they keep reading excerpts of the Gospel According to Jacobson posted over and over and over and over and over and over again on the internet by bloggers who know zero about the subjects of nuclear engineering, nuclear physics, nuclear chemistry or nuclear economics.

[kristopher]

1. Chinese government prioritizes sale of renewable energy to grid.

After a report came out detaining China's renewable resources and how they can work to meet China's energy needs, China changed their law to one mandating that grid operators will have to buy all renewable energy available (nuclear is not renewable) before buying the output of other types of generation.

Where do you think future money for generating capacity is going to flow to?

[Statistical]

3. Your understand of wholesale power is flawed.

Renewables & nuclear have high capital cost and low operating costs. A windfarm will always sell 100% of its power to the grid. Always. There will never be a single second when they won't. Say a windfarm has a break even cost of 6 cents per kwh. At a particular point in time the highest price in wholesale auction is only 1.2 cents.

Even if a winfarm has to sell power at 1.2 cents per kWh (operating at a loss) it is better than not selling the power (0.0 cents). As a result the bill is meaningless. If is a feel good statement that doesn't materially affect the way business is done.

The bill doesn't set any minimum price point for renewable energy simply that it must be accepted. It will be decades before renewable energy is more than a tiny fraction of China energy demands.

[joshcryer]

5. It also neglects the fact that there exist no grid where China's most powerful wind resource is.

They're building a grid out there but it is still years out.

[kristopher]

6. Actually it is your understanding that is flawed.

You are talking about the spot market and your conclusions for that are only applicable for very, very low penetrations renewables.

The Chinese order is from the ground up and as renewable penetration increases it will be the thermal systems that are squeezed out by the economic structure

This reverses the structural bias in our grid that I've discussed here many times and is the one sure way to build a renewable, distributed grid.

[Statistical]

7. Not all thermal plants are created equal.

Even if that happens (and it would require a massive amount of renewable energy far more than China has announced) it would squeeze high marginal cost players first.

Nuclear (like wind, solar, nydro, geothermal) have very low marginal cost. Not to be confused with total life cycle cost. Total lifecycle cost is the entire cost for NEW generation. Marginal cost is the cost to produce "one more" kwh of energy from an existing plant. Once a plant is built the additional cost to produce 1 kwh of power is about 2 cents. So while renewable energy (or any high concentration of low marginal cost power) may squeeze wholesale power it will squeeze the high marginal cost players first.

Theoretically given enough excess capacity and low marginal cost players (like wind, solar, hydro, nuclear) the wholesale power rate will decline. IF it declines below the marginal cost of say a natural gas plant or oil plant (high fuel costs) they will idle. They idle because it is cheaper to sell no power than sell power below their marginal cost.

Nuclear with low marginal cost won't be affected.

What theoretically could happen is that no new nuclear power plants will be built. Why? because this new low cost enviroment means any potential future sales will be below lifecycle cost. However that doesn't affect plants already built.

At the penetration and growth rate in China it is litterally centuries before we see that kind of capacity increase to the discussion is academic at best.

[kristopher]

8. "no new nuclear power plants will be built"

That is precisely my point - this law is the basis of a totally renewable grid.

Your conclusion about "centuries" is nonsense unless you expect it to take them centuries to fully electrify their country.

[Statistical]

9. No they will fully electrify their country in decades but it will be with coal.

At their current rate of renewable growth it will be centuries before they have a 100% renewable grid (if ever).

So if it was 2060 and we were discussing will there be MORE nuclear power plants that would be a different question.

the "no new nuclear plants" would only be:
a) after sufficient capacity existing with low marginal rate
b) that marginal rate is less than life-cycle cost of new nuclear reactors

neither condition holds true today, tomorrow, next year, or next decade. Thus China will continue to build nuclear reactors. Theoretically someday if enough capacity exists and marginal cost is less than cost of new nuclear reactors they will stop building new reactors but that isn't really meaningful for any current discussion on nuclear power.

[kristopher]

10. Why would it be coal?

Renewables roll out faster and are a better investment when the grid is structured the way they have it. It takes decades to pay off the investments and no one is going to invest in a generator that is going to have a steadily decreasing slice of the demand. That is the same problem confronting nuclear everywhere, not just china.

You have made it very, very clear how important the high capacity factor is for nuclear's economics. But if Europe reaches it 2020 goals on energy efficiency it causes a projected load factor for new nuclear of 76% (no matter technical capability) and if they hit their 2020 renewable target the number drops to 56%. Before you slip into a fugue where you start spouting about how they will sell it all because they drop the price you'd better remember that their total costs are not just the marginal operating costs. Of course, like all the other supporters of nuclear power you think the money invested to build the plants is free and need not be paid back, but a lot of people disagree with that.

A totally renewable distributed grid is not only possible, it is preferred to a centralized system built around thermal generation.

You are grasping at straws and talking nonsense.

[Statistical]

11. You really think China is going to stop building coal and build windmills?

Why do you think we built coal? It is dirt cheap and China is the worlds largest producer of coal. It is a large, cheap, easily produced energy supply that provides them some level of energy security. Coal would be great except for that whole minor it is killing the planet, and the massive pollution, and millions of tons of waste. From a cost standpoint where those externalized costs are ingored there is no cheaper form of power on the planet.

You really have gotten drunk on the "wind can save everything" kool-aid.

As far as marginal vs lifecycle you either don't get it (I doubt anyone is that dense) or you don't want to get it.

Once a nuclear plant is BUILT the construction cost becomes sunk. There is no possible way to "undo" it and get the money back. So even if a reactor operates at a loss it will still have a high capacity factor. It is better to have a 90% capacity factor than a 50% one because you LOSE LESS MONEY.

Imagine for a second you have $6 billion and you buy a nuclear reactor. No financing. You just hand Avera a truckload of cash and they give you keys to a reactor. I know you wouldn't but imagine you might learn something. So now you have a reactor and it will operate for 40 years. Lets say outages, accidents, and refueling take up 10% of reactors theoretical capacity. So you have 90% availability or about 9000 GWh. In a year you can sell 1 GWh or you can sell 9000 GWh. Your choice. Obviously you can't sell 9001GWh. Now each GWh you sell will cost you $18,000 (in fuel, maintenance, labor, security, etc).

If wholesale electricity is $50,000 per GWh you get $50,0000 - $18,000 = $32,000 cashflow. If wholesale electricity is $30K per GWh you get $30K - $18K = $12K.

Now can you imagine a scenario where you won't sell 9000GWh each year. No matter how cheap electricity gets (due to theoretical ultra low cost wind) it would be better to sell electricity than not sell it. If you only got $18,500 per GWh (mere $500 after O&M) you margin would be very small but it would be better than idling the reactor and getting $0.00. $500 is better than $0.

Now in the long run after 40 years you COULD end up losing money. It COULD be a bad investment. To break even selling all your power you would need to get at least $34K per GWh. If you sold all your power and it was less than $34K per GWh you would lose money.

Still there is no possible situation where it would make economic sense to idle the reactor and not sell power unless price of wholesale power fell below $18,000 per GWH (1.8 cents per KWh).

So while it is possible at some future date no NEW nuclear reactors will be built (because wholesale power is so cheap nuclear can't compete) any reactor that is built will have as high of a capacity factor as possible to be profitable (or at worst case be the least unprofitable possible).

Once built a reactor construction (and financing) is sunk cost. It can't be "undone". So a reactor utility will ALWAYS sell ever single kWh they can possibly generate until the day it shuts down because the marginal cost is very cheap (1.2 cents per kWh).

[kristopher]

12. When you are referring to sunk costs

you are talking about operating at a loss. That's the freaking point. The plants are destined for bankruptcy.

You can't plan and sell the investment based on selling X amount of power at Y price and then survive with either 1/2X at Y price, or X at at 1//2Y.

This is PRECISELY the scenario that the financial houses are warning their investors about. The ONLY way they recommend investing is with HUGE taxpayer and ratepayer subsidies taking ALL the risk away from the investor and placing it on the public sector.

Any way you cut it NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS ARE NOT A VIABLE ECONOMIC PROPOSITION.

[Statistical]

14. That doesn't change your false argument that reactors will lower capacity factor.

I have never indicated it is impossible for a nuclear utility to go bankrupt hell it is possible for a wind utility to go bankrupt. Newer cheaper wind could bankrupt older higher cost wind. :) A wind farm built today has a fixed capital cost and low marginal cost. If the wholesale power it can sell is less than its debt cost & marginal cost it will have negative cashflow. Go negative cashflow too long and you go bankrupt. This isn't some magic thing that only applies to nuclear reactors.

However that scenario where nuclear reactor are operating at a loss will only occur if wholesale price of power is too low. There is nothing to indicate that is happening at any point in the future.

As wholesale price of power declines high marginal cost utilities will suffer first. Oil power plants will be the first to go (I know it is crazy we even have oil power plants). Natural gas turbines come next.

Two things will happen over next couple decades to makes those high marginal cost players become even higher marginal cost players. One is carbon tax and the second is rising commodity prices. That will be the squeeze that kills fossil fuel. Still even that will likely take decades.

Theoretically someday renewable energy may be cheap enough to force nuclear (and most renewable energy farms built with current technology) into a situation where they can't compete but that is so far off it is not a material concern. Nuclear reactors repay their cost of capital in about 18-22 years. Any "future tech" that results in a massive reduction in wholesale power costs more than 2 decades out is not material to reactors built today (although it would prevent reactors from being built in two decades).

[kristopher]

15. Your "analysis" sucks and the investment firms do not agree with you.

You have made it very, very clear how important the high capacity factor is for nuclear's economics. But if Europe reaches it 2020 goals on energy efficiency it causes a projected load factor for new nuclear of 76% (no matter technical capability) and if they hit their 2020 renewable target the number drops to 56%. Before you slip into a fugue where you start spouting about how they will sell it all because they drop the price you'd better remember that their total costs are not just the marginal operating costs. Of course, like all the other supporters of nuclear power you think the money invested to build the plants is free and need not be paid back, but a lot of people disagree with that.

[Statistical]

16. No it won't. Now we are going backwards.

No nuclear reactor ever in the history of nuclear power has idled and not sold power when demand existed.

Ever. Not one.

So when a reactor has say 85% capacity factor it is because 15% of the time the reactor physically could not sell power (accidents, shutdowns, repairs, earthquake, maintenance, refueling). It doesn't mean they could have sold power 15% of the time (or even 1% of the time) and chose not too.

Nobody anywhere idles reactors because the price of wholesale power is too low. Nobody. It is beyond stupid.

Your "analysis" isn't supported by any analyst. It isn't even supported by logic or common sense.

[kristopher]

17. Of course they will sell the power - after they go bankrupt.

That is and has been the point so apparently we agree.

Federal loan guarantees, anyone?

Welfare for Bechtel and Halliburton, anyone?

AFTER you wipe out the cost of construction, I'm sure they will sell all the power they can produce -

AFTER you wipe out the cost of construction through bankruptcy...

[Nederland]

21. Question

If the plants currently scheduled are completed without needing the federal loan guarantees, will you admit you were wrong?

[kristopher]

22. What are you talking about?

Do you know of any scheduled plants that do not plan to use the loan guarantees? If so, please provide details.

[Nederland]

23. I'm talking about your claims of bankrupcy being inevitable

I'm asking, if the scheduled plants complete and no companies go bankrupt (i.e. the federal government never has to cover the loan), will you admit you were wrong?

[kristopher]

25. Do you really think we will be having this conversation then?

There are several points at which bankruptcies might occur and the probability being cited is in the range of 55-70%. For this to prove out fully will, like the last time, take at least a decade, probably longer as ways are found (such as above market rate power purchase agreements) to prop up many of the plants. And, again just like last time, the nuclear industry will actually get what they want - a couple or three decades of pilfering the public treasury while we are "waiting to see".

So no, I see no way that your test is viable and I don't accept that a "wait and see" attitude serves the interest of any entity except the nuclear industry.

[joshcryer]

26. OMB denies that figure and you know it.

Given that you know it I highly doubt you'd put actual money where your mouth is.

[kristopher]

30. That figure is from credit rating agencies, Einstein.

[Statistical]

34. No it isn't. n/t

[kristopher]

37. Yes, it is.

[Statistical]

38. Only in your mind.

Moodys rated MEAG nuclear reactor bonds at Baa+ which is very low risk of default.

[kristopher]

40. That is a lowered rating only possible because tax/rate payers are assuming risk

Announcement:
Moody's: Nuclear plant construction poses risks to credit metrics, ratings
New York, June 02, 2008 -- The cost and complexity of building a new nuclear power plant could weaken
the credit metrics of an electric utility and potentially pressure its credit ratings several years into the
project, according to a new report from Moody's Investors Service.

In the report, "New Nuclear Generating Capacity: Potential Credit Implications for U.S. Investor Owned
Utilities," Moody's examines the effects of a new nuclear facility on the credit metrics of "NukeCo," a
hypothetical electric utility. Through this illustrative model, Moody's suggests that a utility that builds a
new nuclear power plant may experience an approximately 25% to 30% deterioration in cash-flow-related
credit metrics. In the case of "NukeCo," cash flow from operations as a percentage of debt falls from
roughly the 25% level to the mid-teens range.

"While new nuclear generating capacity has a number of positive credit implications, it is not without its
risks," said Moody's Vice President Jim Hempstead. "The sheer size, cost and complexity of new nuclear
construction projects can increase the business and operating risk of a utility, potentially exposing it to
downward rating pressure over the intermediate- to longer-term horizon."

According to the illustrative model used in the report, "NukeCo" is well-positioned within the single-A
ratings category before building a nuclear plant and would face little ratings pressure in the early years of
construction. But in years 5-10, when construction costs reach their peak and key credit metrics begin
to deteriorate significantly, the fictional company would be better positioned in the Baa-rating category.

Hempstead said it would be unlikely for near-term ratings or rating outlooks to change solely due to a
utility's decision to pursue new nuclear generating capacity. He said utilities building a new plant would
most likely strengthen their balance sheets and bolster liquidity at the start of the construction cycle.
Further, he said, regulators would be likely to authorize reasonable recovery from ratepayers of
construction costs out of concern for the long-term financial health of the utilities they regulate.
"A utility's approach to its overall corporate financial policies would be a critical factor in the overall credit
profile assessment during the construction period. Our preliminary analysis leads us to conclude that
financial credit metrics will deteriorate meaningfully without significant mitigating factors or other
structural provisions," Hempstead said.

Beyond the financial pressures inherent in nuclear plant construction, Hempstead noted a number of
other risks.
"The technology is very costly and complex, and the 10- to 15-year duration of these construction
projects can expose a utility to material changes in the political, regulatory, economic and commodity
price environments, as well as to new alternatives to nuclear generation," he said. "These potential
changes in the landscape could prompt regulators to disallow certain cost recoveries from ratepayers
after a plant is built, or lead to market intervention or restructuring initiatives by elected officials."


On the side of positive rating implications, Hempstead said new nuclear appears to be one of the most
compelling solutions for electric-power generation amid more stringent environmental regulations --
particularly related to greenhouse gases, which nuclear plants do not emit.

"New nuclear capacity will also provide long-term benefits with respect to fuel diversity, reducing the
reliance on volatile natural gas commodities or purchased-power costs," said Hempstead. "Further, the
longer the time horizon a regulator uses to assess a utility's request to build a new nuclear plant and
recover the investment, the more benefit nuclear power will have on electric rates for end-use
consumers."

[Statistical]

41. Risk of default with Baa rated bond isn't 55%-70%. It is 0.2%.

Still looking for proof of your bogus claim that rating industry believes the risk of default it 50%+.

Do you know what average default rate of Baa rated bonds are?
http://www.efalken.com/banking/html%27s/defaultcurves.htm

Moody is simply saying risk increases but it isn't anywhere near your utterly stupid claims of 55%-70%.
I mean really if a utility thought the likelyhood they would go bankrupt over building a reactor was 5% they wouldn't build it much less 55%.

Also I guess you missed this part:

Hempstead said it would be unlikely for near-term ratings or rating outlooks to change solely due to a
utility's decision to pursue new nuclear generating capacity. He said utilities building a new plant would
most likely strengthen their balance sheets and bolster liquidity at the start of the construction cycle.

Strengthen their balance sheet. Like MEAG adding $300 million in cash to balance sheet over last 3 years to act as a cushion on cashflow. Or maybe them borrowing $2.5 billion when their share is only $1.8 billion giving them contigency funds.

What Moody is saying is that a reactor is a risk however well run entities (like NON-PROFIT public utilities) will take steps to mitigate that risk.

[kristopher]

42. Make up your mind what you want to talk about.

The bond rating or the risk of not being able to sell the power and how those two are mediated by shifting risk to the tax/rate payers.

Here is a question for you - I don't know the answer. What arrangements have been made for purchasing the power from Watts Bar 2?

[Statistical]

44. Watts Bar #2 power will be sold exact same way as Watt Bar #1 power.

On the South Eastern Wholesale Power market.

99.999999% of power involves no PPA (Power Purchase Agreement). Most Wind is bid competitively and sold on wholesale market without a PPA. So when you see a wind project saying they need a PPA at 4x wholesale power that should be a warning sign. Millions of kWh of wind is sold around the country without a PPA as is all nuclear power, and thermal power in this country.

The only power that requires a PPA is solar because it is so damn expensive nobody would ever buy it unless they had no other choice. Solar farms can't survive without a PPA as they need to sell every single expensive watt to be profitable.

TVA has had no problem selling on the wholesale market all the power Watts Bar #1 can generate for the last 20 years. Watts Bar #2 will be no different.

The thing you don't seem to get is capacity factor & marginal cost go hand in hand. If nuclear was as expensive as you say it was then it wouldn't be able to compete on wholesale market thus it would have a much lower capacity factor. Nuclear wholesale bids tend to be the lowest in the industry thus they always "win" and 100% of their available power gets bought.

Still none of that has anything to do your original claim that no nuclear reactors will be built without loan guarantees.

[kristopher]

46. Is that how you get through the day; constantly making false statements?

This is about the third time today you've falsely stated my remarks on nuclear financing and risk. I didn't say "no nuclear reactors will be built without loan guarantees" because I know that is wrong. What I said (and every single analyst out there agrees, was that no nuclear plant will be built unless the risk is shifted to the public sector. There are a variety of mechanisms to shift that risk.

I don't follow the particulars of nuclear power politics on a plant by plant basis, but I'm now looking into the Watts Bar reactors and the TVA governing structure and its mission. The first thing that jumps out is that Watts Bar 2 has been under construction for what, 25-30 years now? Yes, construction was stopped partway through but then when it restarted it was a 5 year schedule for completing a project that was already underway. That is 25% longer than you are claiming for a project from a dead start, so you might want to hold down the rush to brag on this one.
Next is the fact that the Pres. of the TVA is also on the board of the Nuclear Energy Institute, no conflict of interest there, eh?
And then we have the fact that this is going onto the back of the ratepayers of the TVA. Since the people who are buying the plant are the same people who get to set the rates, if there is risk, it is the ratepayers who are assuming it.

If you want to dispute that, feel free to show me proof of a turnkey contract where Bechtel has agreed to deliver a completed plant for $2.5 billion by 2013; because that is the only way the risk to the ratepayers could possibly be mitigated.

[Statistical]

47. That isn't how electrical wholesale purchase and distribution works in this country.

TVA is both a power producer and a utility.

TVA the utility is obligated to buy power from lowest power providers. All power providers set prices on SouthEast wholesale energy interchange and based on demand the automatic system allocates power starts and stops. TVA the power producer sells power into that exchange. The only way that power will be bought is if it is competitive. If it isn't compeitive the power won't be bought and other providers will be used. THAT IS HOW POWER DISTRIBUTION HAS WORKED IN THIS COUNTRY FOR 20+ YEARS.

Of course power costs are paid by consumers but low carbon power is more expensive than other forms of power. Wind "shifts" higher cost of low carbon power onto the consumer compared to existing coal plants.

The reality is other than your bogus studies most people accept nuclear has a low price per kWh. Certainly low compared to other forms of low carbon power. The only thing cheaper is hydro.

DOE, OECD, IPCC all recognize that. If nuclear was as expensive as you claim it was nobody would buy it.

If you want to dispute that, feel free to show me proof of a turnkey contract where Bechtel has agreed to deliver a completed plant for $2.5 billion by 2013; because that is the only way the risk to the ratepayers could possibly be mitigated.

Nuclear power doesn't need a capital cost of $2.5 billion. :rofl: Given the higher capacity factor compared to wind 0.92 vs 0.26 1 GW of nuclear power is roughly equal to 4 GW of wind power.

$2.5 billion reactor / 1150MW = $2173 per KW overnight.
That would be comparable to wind turbine at $614 per KW overnight. ($2173 * 0.26 / 0.92)

So I will show you a $2.5 billion reactor when you should be a 2.5MW turbine for $1.5 million. :rofl:

[kristopher]

48. You are a hoot.

You wrote, "TVA is both a power producer and a utility" to say that I was wrong when I wrote that TVA is both buying the power plant and setting the price for the power.


Then we have the fact that you don't seem to be aware of the cost of the project you've been cackling about.

Old plant, new build

Back in May 2002, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) board approved the restart of Browns Ferry 1, which had been offline since 1985 when TVA had decided to shut the plant down following problems of poor performance and management. Approving the restart project, a TVA statement read: “The unit 1 recovery project will cost from $1.7 billion to $1.8 billion and will take five years to complete.” The unit now has a capacity of 1155MWe – 105% of its originally licensed capacity – and work has been carried out that would allow the plant to be uprated to 1280MWe. Assuming permission to operate at the higher capacity level is obtained, the cost of the restart project was some $1400/kWe.

While this figure is comparable to Fertel’s estimate of what is “realistic” for a new plant, one should also bear in mind that a new nuclear plant would be expected to operate for 60 years or more. Browns Ferry 1, on the other hand, is currently planned to operate for a further 27 years (until 2034), having received a 20-year operating licence extension (to its original 40-year operating licence) last year.

More recently, this summer the TVA board approved the completion of Watts Bar 2, at an estimated cost of $2.49 billion. Translating to a figure approaching $2000/kWe (2007 dollars), this doesn’t even take into account the fact that the Westinghouse PWR is considered to be around 60% complete.

While these projects give some indication as to how much a utility is willing to spend on new nuclear capacity, the figures give no indication as to how highly TVA values the lower level of risk associated with these projects compared to so-called Generation III+ plant.

Lowering the risk was also a main consideration behind NRG Energy’s decision to ...
http://www.neimagazine.com/storyprint.asp?sc=2047917

[Statistical]

49. Whats wrong with the cost?

$2.49 B for a reactor roughly 60% complete is about $6B for a new reactor. I never made claim that reactors a "cheap". They don't need to be cheap. They produce a massive amount of power.

$2000 per KWe (peak) @ 60% complete ~= $5000 per KWe (peak) for new reactor.

Now $5000 per KWe (peak) may seem like a lot but reactors have a higher capacity factor.

Reactor @ 0.92% capacity $5000 per KWe (peak) = $5434 per KWe (average).
Wind Turbine @ 0.26% capacity $2000 per KWe (peak) = $7692 per KWe (average).

So why in your mind is a turbine turbine "cheap" but Watts Bar "expensive".

Nuclear reactors don't need to be some ultra cheap price per KW. Even $4000 - $6000 per KW (peak) is competitive with other low carbon solutions.

[kristopher]

50. .

[joshcryer]

27. Also, it is unlikely your blatherings on a forum are going to do one thing about new nuclear.

New nuclear plants will be built, and they will have CO2 emissions comparable if not better than Coal-CCS. Only without the long term sequestration problem.

[Nederland]

28. Less than 10 years

In 5 or 6 we should have a pretty good idea of how the reactors in South Texas or Vogle, GA are going. Who knows, we may both still be around then to rehash this. I've already been on DU for 9 years, so it's not inconceivable.

I'll bookmark this thread :)

[Statistical]

29. By 2013 your will know how Watts Bar #2 is doing.

You know that reactor being built right now with no loan guarantee at all. :)

Since nuclear power is all about profits it is kinda strange that the TVA (a non-profit, publicly owned utility) is building a reactor.
Then again the new reactors in GA are 55% owned by non-profits & co-ops.

[kristopher]

31. Republican states like nuclear - is that a surprise?

No one says nuclear power isn't popular with the Republican and TeaBagger crowd.

[Statistical]

36. What does that have to do with loan guarantees?

Watts Bar #2 is building build RIGHT NOW without loan guarantees.

[kristopher]

32. Let me know how it is doing in 2025 after renewables have continued ramping up.

[Statistical]

33. The wind industry optomistic projections is that wind will be 8% of electrical power by 2020.

Hydro is tapped. Nobody is predicting a major increase in hydro so that gives you another 16%.

Solar? Come on. Solar is 1/10th of 1% of electrical power.
Tidal? Nothing on the horizon for any real power generation.

So there likely will be 24% renewable energy by 2020. Hell maybe everything else adds another 6% (unlikely). So 30% renewable.

Without nuclear that is 70% fossil fuels (worse that we are today).

So is the wind lobby now a nuclear shill?

[kristopher]

35. We'll see.

[Statistical]

39. While we wait and see" Watts Bar #2 is being built without loan guarantees.

Are you ready to retract your statement that nuclear reactors are not built without loan guarantees.

If Watts Bar #2 (2013), Vogtle #3 (2016), Vogtle #4 (2017), North Anna #3 (2018) are all completed without bankruptcy and cashflow positive in first couple years will be retract your utterly bogus 55%-70% of reactors will go bankrupt claim?

[kristopher]

43. I didn't asy that - I said shifting the risk to the tax/ratepayers.

There are a number of mechanisms for doing that besides loan guarantees.

[Statistical]

45. What shifting cost.?

Earlier the shifting cost was risk of default. Now that we know 55%-70% default "cost" is bogus what shifting cost are you talking about.

Your questions seem to indicate you haven't done any independent research on how power is bought and sold in this country. Only a tiny amount of power invovles an upfront agreement and the only ones with those are solar plants. 90%+ of wind power is competitive (means it can be sold on open market) only a small amount of corporate welfare projects are asking for PPA (which should be a warning sign).

Power from Watts Bar #2 will be sold on open market. specifically the southeast competitive wholesale market.


Power is sold competitively on open wholesale market it has been for couple decades now. Every power provider bids their selling price and capacity. The system automatically notifies providers when to connect and disconnect from the grid (or what load to supply to grid). This is done in real time from lowest cost providers to highest cost ones. It gets slightly more complex because there are different brackets of power but if you are interested do some reading on how it works.

http://www.ferc.gov/market-oversight/mkt-electric/overview.asp

Nuclear power is incredibly cheap the only thing cheaper is hydro. There is a reason why it has the highest capacity factor. Nuclear reactors sell ever single potential kWh. When a reactor has 92% capacity factor that doesn't mean they are selling 92% of available power. The 8% is unavailable time. Reactors sell every single potential kwh. The only way they can do that is by undercutting all other power providers. If a reactor x sells 8760 GWh in a year it was because the production was 8760Wh.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat8p2.html (prices are in mils divide by 10 to get price in cents).

When Watts Bar #2 goes online it will under cut fossil fuel plants and they will lose auctions and be forced to idle (and/or reduce load). If capacity factor drops to much the owner may shut it down. The market self adjusts as providers come on and offline.

It isn't a coincidence that nuclear energy has highest capacity factor in the industry, they do that by having the lowest marginal rate in industry. As long as reactor can be built on time and on budget the risk of not being able to sell power is essentially 0%. If they can't be built on time and on budget they won't be built. Utilities are in the industry of selling energy not promoting technology. The massive potential for a reactor is the negligible operating cost however if capital cost (construction & interest) isn't capped then it doesn't matter how low O&M is.

[joshcryer]

24. You didn't answer his question about coal.

[Statistical]

2. interesting photo

China is assembling bands into a ring and then moving ring into position. Each ring will be welded in place to the previous ring. Usually containment structure is built in place plate by plate and is a very slow and expensive process. Since this is a new reactor design I am not sure if this is Avera standard for EPR or if this is a Chinese innovation.

Either way it is ingenious. Making the bands off-site and then welding the completed piece in place is far more productive than slowly building the containment panel by panel.

[AtheistCrusader]

13. Unless you drop one :)

That is a hellacious crane. Impressive effort.

[Statistical]

18. Yeah I wouldn't want to be that crane operator.

What do you think one of those bands costs in terms of material, time & labor.

I certainly wouldn't want to be that crane operator in China. :)

[FBaggins]

19. You think that's a big crane?

Take a look at the one moving the containment vessel bottom head for the new AP1000 reactor.

[Statistical]

20. What is crazy is the "truck" they drove it in on.

[Ratty]

4. Ah, good old reliable safe and regulated Chinese construction

I'm sure the nearby residents will sleep easier at night.