26 Jun 15
Originally posted by humyI have no problem maintaining current nuclear plants. I also see place for nuclear in particular instances where renewables are not viable, or where they are built to get rid of dangerous nuclear waste. However I do not support the building of new nuclear where it is not necessary, and where it will produce new waste (older generation).
i.e. with no nuclear and with nuclear at best contributing to power generation in the medium run just to help reduce CO2 emissions until we have 100% renewables.
The fact is that the nuclear industry gets heavily subsidised. If those subsidies were instead put into renewables, they are already more cost effective, and with more investment costs will continue to fall dramatically.
26 Jun 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadyes, I also think we should stop subsidizing nuclear for greater favour of renewables.
I have no problem maintaining current nuclear plants. I also see place for nuclear in particular instances where renewables are not viable, or where they are built to get rid of dangerous nuclear waste. However I do not support the building of new nuclear where it is not necessary, and where it will produce new waste (older generation).
The fact is that ...[text shortened]... already more cost effective, and with more investment costs will continue to fall dramatically.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
26 Jun 15
Originally posted by humyWe subsidise ALL power generation because it reduces the burden on the less well off
yes, I also think we should stop subsidizing nuclear for greater favour of renewables.
by making the rich[er] people pay more via taxes.
There is no reason not to give nuclear exactly the same benefits as any other power
generation methods.
The reason we should end subsidies for fossil fuels is that fossil fuels are hugely polluting
and damaging in a way that neither nuclear nor renewables are.
If the market then doesn't support nuclear it doesn't support nuclear.
Why you keep irrationally trying to artificially disadvantage nuclear is beyond me.
26 Jun 15
4 edits
Originally posted by googlefudgeactually, I thought I was trying pretty hard to very seriously look into the nuclear option when I started this thread.
Why you keep irrationally trying to artificially disadvantage nuclear is beyond me.
I certainly wouldn't have suggested my idea of how it alternatively might be done if I was dead set against nuclear right from the start!
I certainly have no axe to grind against nuclear!
In fact, although it is still too early to tell, I think fission power in particular just might have a long term future and I implied as much.
But none of that implies I think we should be subsidizing nuclear right now, because I don't.
By the way, I am all for taxing the rich to give to the poor but subsidizing energy generation isn't the only way to help the poor nor do I think it is necessarily the best option to help the poor. Why not, just for example, give them more income to pay for their energy rather than make their energy cheaper? The money for that greater income could still directly/indirectly come from the rich.
27 Jun 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeDifferent ones get different amounts of subsidies. I believe fossil fuels and nuclear currently get more subsidies than renewables in most countries.
We subsidise ALL power generation because it reduces the burden on the less well off
by making the rich[er] people pay more via taxes.
There is no reason not to give nuclear exactly the same benefits as any other power generation methods.
Yes there is. You yourself have mentioned the vast stockpile of nuclear waste. Clearly that was not such a good idea. Now if you have a nuclear power station that can use up that waste as fuel, then you may have a point, but merely saying 'leave it to the market' doesn't cut it for older generation nuclear. The market does not take the waste into account.
Why you keep irrationally trying to artificially disadvantage nuclear is beyond me.
Because so far nuclear subsidies far exceed those of any other power industry. It also has political implications (think Iran) as well as problems of corruption. Why you artificially advantage nuclear is beyond me. I recall you recently trying to argue that nuclear electricity works better than other types of electricity or some such nonsense.
27 Jun 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeHere in SA, the market doesn't get involved. We are choosing nuclear because there is more opportunity for corruption (and the decision makers want that). Nuclear is being chosen by politicians with practically no consultation and no cost calculations whatsoever.
If the market then doesn't support nuclear it doesn't support nuclear.
27 Jun 15
5 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadjudging from the data here in the sublink of that link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
Lots of caveats, but still interesting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#/media/File:LCOE_comparison_fraunhofer_november2013.svg
The range of levelized costs of VP utility solar energy has total overlap with that of natural gas (but not vice versa ).
The range of levelized costs of onshore wind energy has total overlap with that of of natural gas (but not vice versa ) and almost total overlap with that of coal.
This data disproves the myth that renewables are, simplistically put, more expensive than fossil fuels.
Which is more expensive simply depends on exactly what you are comparing with what and it would be just stupid nonsense to make the sweeping generalize by saying renewables are more expensive ( like Metal brain did ).
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
27 Jun 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadYes. and nuclear is competitive in all the countries listed, refuting your own argument.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
Lots of caveats, but still interesting.
In the UK the numbers listed for new nuclear are directly comparable with wind power,
and way better than solar. And for France the only listed power that was cheaper was hydro.
Which comes with it's own downsides of flooding huge areas of land.
And I would note that these numbers are not taking into account mass productions savings
[because nobody currently is planning mass producing nuclear power] and these numbers
do not include cost savings for using waste heat from the reactors for heating homes and
businesses [because they are not currently planning to do that] and these numbers do not
include any cost savings from using advanced nuclear power generation to use up our old
nuclear waste.
I keep seeing people claiming that nuclear is vastly more expensive than renewables and every
time someone links to actual data I say BUNK. The data does not support that position.
You are wrong, please stop claiming otherwise until you can provide hard date actually supporting
your position.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
27 Jun 15
Originally posted by humyI agree completely that renewables are comparable or better than fossil fuels even before
judging from the data here in the sublink of that link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#/media/File:LCOE_comparison_fraunhofer_november2013.svg
The range of levelized costs of VP utility solar energy has total overlap with that of natural gas (but not vice versa ).
The range of levelized costs of onshore wind energy has total ov ...[text shortened]... o make the sweeping generalize by saying renewables are more expensive ( like Metal brain did ).
taking into consideration the hidden costs of fossil fuels to our society from pollution and
global warming.
Metal Brain is an idiot and conspiracy nut who lives in his own paranoid alternate reality
and should be ignored accordingly.
27 Jun 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeYou obviously don't know what my argument is. I have never claimed it is not competitive by those calculations.
Yes. and nuclear is competitive in all the countries listed, refuting your own argument.
In the UK the numbers listed for new nuclear are directly comparable with wind power,
and way better than solar. And for France the only listed power that was cheaper was hydro.
Which comes with it's own downsides of flooding huge areas of land.
Yes, but surely the downsides are part of the calculation? Maybe not. Maybe nuclear's downsides aren't either. I did say there were caveats.
And I would note that these numbers are not taking into account mass productions savings
Which would benefit renewables far more than nuclear.
and these numbers do not include any cost savings from using advanced nuclear power generation to use up our old nuclear waste.
The do say 'advanced nuclear'. How do you know those numbers do not include all the things you say they do not include?
I keep seeing people claiming that nuclear is vastly more expensive than renewables
Well then go and argue with them.
You are wrong, please stop claiming otherwise until you can provide hard date actually supporting
your position.
Please stop arguing with people who aren't here when your post is addressed to me. Deal with things I say, not things you wish I said.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
27 Jun 15
Originally posted by twhitehead
You obviously don't know what my argument is. I have never claimed it is not competitive by those calculations.
[b]In the UK the numbers listed for new nuclear are directly comparable with wind power,
and way better than solar. And for France the only listed power that was cheaper was hydro.
Which comes with it's own downsides of flooding huge areas ...[text shortened]... en't here when your post is addressed to me. Deal with things I say, not things you wish I said.
Yes, but surely the downsides are part of the calculation? Maybe not. Maybe
nuclear's downsides aren't either. I did say there were caveats.
No, the calculation is looking at the financial cost. It doesn't factor in other costs like
"a view ruined by thousands of wind turbines" or "the town I grew up in is now flooded and
under a reservoir" etc etc.
Which would benefit renewables far more than nuclear.
Again no. Mass production saves money because the design and development costs and
the costs associated with making moulds and production lines is spread over many more units.
However as you increase the number of units you are making the saving per product reduces
and the fixed per item costs come to dominate.
If you are dealing with a small number of units then 'small' changes to the number of units will
have a big effect. If you make a £100 million mould, and make 1 unit then that unit must bear the
full £100 million cost. If you make 2, then each only needs to bear £50 million. If you make
10, £10 million... ect. However if you were making 10,000 and you up that to 100,000 then
the cost savings are much smaller. [you might get bulk deals on materials, be able to have a smaller
profit margin per unit ect, but the big savings have already happened because you were already manufacturing
in bulk.
Wind, solar, these are already largely based on mass produced items. we build tens of thousands of wind
turbines and tens of thousands of solar panels. Making them even more mass produced is going to net
only small cost savings per unit.
However nuclear reactors are currently build as single stand alone units. They are not mass produced at all.
Consequently, if you were to instead of ordering 1~2 reactors, order ~60 reactors, there would be [and were for
the French who actually did this] massive per unit savings that dramatically reduce the costs.
There is a reason that Frances nuclear cost is ~half that of the UK's per GW/hr.
The do say 'advanced nuclear'. How do you know those numbers do not include all the things you say they do not include?
Because I read the page and supporting documents [not this time but last time].
And because almost nobody is currently actually planning to do this, because politics.
Please stop arguing with people who aren't here when your post is addressed to me. Deal with things I say, not things you wish I said
I apologise, I believed that your posts indicated something they apparently didn't.
28 Jun 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeThat is only one factor. Another major factor is that as demand or perceived demand goes up, more is put into research for cheaper ways to do things. In the case of solar there is significant room for cost reductions in the manufacturing process by doing things differently. Nuclear on the other hand suffers from stagnation because safety concerns (both real and political) encourage manufacturers to stick with tried and tested designs rather than look for cheaper / better alternatives.
Again no. Mass production saves money because the design and development costs and
the costs associated with making moulds and production lines is spread over many more units.
The interesting thing about your whole argument is that it relies on the use of new untested designs that require more research before they are actually manufactured. Also keep in mind that countries do not like to share their research, so even if China does build some, the UK can't simply benefit from the mass production as they have to develop their own version.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
28 Jun 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou say that there is 'significant' room for cost reduction...
That is only one factor. Another major factor is that as demand or perceived demand goes up, more is put into research for cheaper ways to do things. In the case of solar there is significant room for cost reductions in the manufacturing process by doing things differently. Nuclear on the other hand suffers from stagnation because safety concerns (both re ...[text shortened]... the UK can't simply benefit from the mass production as they have to develop their own version.
France's nuclear energy is ~50% less than the UK's.
Which suggests that simply mass producing current technology without any of the benefits
of moving to 4th generation reactors, many of which reduce costs, can give a ~50% cost
saving.
When you have one single avenue that can reduce costs that much from a starting point of
already being competitive I think it's reasonable to conclude that nuclear can remain competitive
over the medium to long term.
And while you say that I am 'relying' on advances in technology and using new designs to bring
the costs down. That is exactly the argument being used by humy et al about renewables.
If we are playing a level playing field then either we are both stuck with only currently available
and proven technology, or we both get to extrapolate reasonable and expected future advances
in technology. Which is what I am doing.
You are correct that politics is hampering development of nuclear [and renewables frankly] and
that we are thus not as far advanced as we should and could be.
But as I am always arguing for what we should be doing and could be doing, arguing that we are
not doing that is totally to miss the point.
Yes, if we don't spend money and time developing new reactor designs we wont have any new reactor designs.
This is tautologically true, and does nothing to contradict any of my arguments.
29 Jun 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeReference?
You say that there is 'significant' room for cost reduction...
France's nuclear energy is ~50% less than the UK's.
Which suggests that simply mass producing current technology without any of the benefits
of moving to 4th generation reactors, many of which reduce costs, can give a ~50% cost
saving.
To me, it suggests France has greater subsidies. Note however that we both agree that the enormous cost of clean-up of the products of old reactors is usually not factored into the costs at all.
And while you say that I am 'relying' on advances in technology and using new designs to bring
the costs down. That is exactly the argument being used by humy et al about renewables.
No, I did not say you were relying on advances to bring costs down. I said you were relying on such advances to make nuclear worth considering. Your main selling points are:
1. Advanced nuclear doesn't add to the waste problem.
2. Advanced nuclear can help solve the current waste problem.
If we are playing a level playing field then either we are both stuck with only currently available
and proven technology, or we both get to extrapolate reasonable and expected future advances
in technology. Which is what I am doing.
Except that the advances in solar are pretty much already known, whereas the advances in nuclear are a lot less clear and much more less likely to actually come to market due to political obstacles.
Can you honestly say that all nuclear power stations built 5 or 10 years from now will be of the new 4th generation design you are proposing? I very much doubt that the ones South Africa is currently signing up for are 4th generation.
You are correct that politics is hampering development of nuclear [and renewables frankly] and
that we are thus not as far advanced as we should and could be.
And this situation will likely continue.