Hillhater
100 TW
Try checking the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (1982) which established the Nuclear Waste Fund, built up by a tax on electricity generated by Nuclear power plants and controlled by Congress.
Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear
- Thread starter Hillhater
- Start date
crossbreak
1 MW
Unfortunately, this study does not contain any calculations, but simply asserts these figures as facts. However, it is quite interesting to see that nuclear energy seems to be cheaper in Germany than in Texas even though there are no more nuclear power plants in operation in Germany. I would be really interested in real numbers, but this paper is obviously not even worth the paper it is printed onThis is where your idealism shines through and highlights your lack of comprehending the real situation.
”Generation” ..is only a small part of the costs incurred to provide a reliable supply to the consumers ( who pay the bills).
Once the additional costs of transmission, storage, back up, stabilisation, life cycle, etc ,( convieniently minimised or ignored in the LCOE figures ), are included ,it is a very different picture.
for a more realistic comparason the “Full SystemLevelised Cost” is a good guide.
Here is another source worth reading
Fossil Fuel Interests Ramp Up Their "Solar Makes Electricity More Expensive" Falsehood - CleanTechnica
stancecoke
1 MW
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2017
- Messages
- 2,071
In this Finnish study, you can find some interesting information. Finland has started a new nuclear powerplant in 2023 and has a plan for the storage of the nuclear waste also.
The figures say, nuclear power is not cheap at all, but is was the decision of the finnish people, that nuclear is better than fossils
The power plants are driven by a non profit organisation, the principle is called "Mankala model"
The figures say, nuclear power is not cheap at all, but is was the decision of the finnish people, that nuclear is better than fossils
The power plants are driven by a non profit organisation, the principle is called "Mankala model"
Loading…
www.sciencedirect.com
Last edited:
Hillhater
100 TW
It is a summary review of the principle.
for calculations try some of the references..
eg… Levelized Full System Costs of Electricity
crossbreak
1 MW
The source indeed makes assumptions:
An 1.6GW EPR nuclear powerplant costs at least 13,2 billion€ without dismantling costs. This is at least 8250€/kW, but only if it was built altready, new ones will be more expensive as equipment prices have risen in the meantime. Hinkley Point C will cost around 16250€/kW according to EDF just as an example. On the other hand battery storage is below €100/kW on a megawatthour scale. So: The figures from the study are at least an order of magnitude away from reality.
Also i did not find any assumption about the length of the Dunkelflaute nor the reqired storage capacity
An 1.6GW EPR nuclear powerplant costs at least 13,2 billion€ without dismantling costs. This is at least 8250€/kW, but only if it was built altready, new ones will be more expensive as equipment prices have risen in the meantime. Hinkley Point C will cost around 16250€/kW according to EDF just as an example. On the other hand battery storage is below €100/kW on a megawatthour scale. So: The figures from the study are at least an order of magnitude away from reality.
Also i did not find any assumption about the length of the Dunkelflaute nor the reqired storage capacity
Hillhater
100 TW
Hinkley C is considered an “outlier” on cost examples, due to the many delays and changes due to regulation changes etc.
More representitive examples are the recent 4 UAE Nuclear plants, built for a total of US$18.6 bn ( US$3,300/kW),.…
...or the just quoted Saudi projects of 16 plants totalling 22GW, for US$ 100bn (4,550 US$/kW)
… so that 6,317 USD/kW, doesnt look too far out.
More representitive examples are the recent 4 UAE Nuclear plants, built for a total of US$18.6 bn ( US$3,300/kW),.…
...or the just quoted Saudi projects of 16 plants totalling 22GW, for US$ 100bn (4,550 US$/kW)
… so that 6,317 USD/kW, doesnt look too far out.
stancecoke
1 MW
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2017
- Messages
- 2,071
France seems to have trouble to get the money to build the planned new nuclear power plants...
www.nucnet.org
France ‘Far From Ready’ To Build Six New Nuclear Power Plants, State Auditor Warns
Cour de comptes says ‘accumulation of risks and constraints could lead to failure of EPR2 programme’
www.nucnet.org
TheBeastie
1 MW
A comparison of asking chatGPT to compare powering Australia (in creating 250TWh annually) using real world projects, this answer was generated by chatGTP a few months ago.
The main idea of it is a comparison of powering Australia over 60 years which is the typical modern expected life span of a nuclear power plant.. The only major power plant that lives longer than nuclear is hydroelectricity. Solar and windfarms have to be rebuilt/replaced every 20 to 25 years.
You can see the questions put and all the simple arithmetic to create the table of costs. You can look up the costs of these large energy projects as they are quite publicly disclosed costs and data.
Here is the shared chatGPT link for the table it creates.
The main idea of it is a comparison of powering Australia over 60 years which is the typical modern expected life span of a nuclear power plant.. The only major power plant that lives longer than nuclear is hydroelectricity. Solar and windfarms have to be rebuilt/replaced every 20 to 25 years.
You can see the questions put and all the simple arithmetic to create the table of costs. You can look up the costs of these large energy projects as they are quite publicly disclosed costs and data.
Here is the shared chatGPT link for the table it creates.
| Item | Solar Power | Wind Power | Nuclear Power |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reference Project | Topaz Solar Farm | Shepherds Flat Wind Farm | Barakah Nuclear Power Plant |
| Capacity per Unit | 550 MW | 845 MW | 5,600 MW |
| Capacity Factor | 27% | 22.7% | 89% |
| Average Output per Unit | 148.5 MW | 191.8 MW | 4,984 MW |
| Units Required | 192 units | 149 units | 6 units |
| Total Capacity Installed | 105,600 MW | 126,005 MW | 33,600 MW |
| Cost per Unit | $3.75 billion AUD | $3 billion AUD | $36.6 billion AUD |
| Total Initial Cost (Power Plants) | $720 billion AUD | $447 billion AUD | $219.6 billion AUD |
| Number of Replacements over 60 Years | 1 replacement (total of 2 installations) | 2 replacements (total of 3 installations) | No replacements needed |
| Total Cost over 60 Years (Plants) | $720 billion AUD × 2 = $1,440 billion AUD | $447 billion AUD × 3 = $1,341 billion AUD | $219.6 billion AUD |
| Battery Storage Required | 399,000 MWh | 399,000 MWh | Not required |
| Battery Storage Cost | $306.21 billion AUD | $306.21 billion AUD | Not required |
| Number of Battery Replacements over 60 Years | 3 replacements (total of 4 installations) | 3 replacements (total of 4 installations) | Not applicable |
| Total Battery Cost over 60 Years | $306.21 billion AUD × 4 = $1,224.84 billion AUD | $306.21 billion AUD × 4 = $1,224.84 billion AUD | Not applicable |
| Total Project Cost over 60 Years | $1,440 billion AUD (plants) + $1,224.84 billion AUD (batteries) = $2,664.84 billion AUD | $1,341 billion AUD (plants) + $1,224.84 billion AUD (batteries) = $2,565.84 billion AUD | $219.6 billion AUD |
| Total Project Cost over 60 Years (Rounded) | $2.665 trillion AUD | $2.566 trillion AUD | $219.6 billion AUD |
Last edited:
TheBeastie
1 MW
And here is the most recent comparison I have asked chatGPT to do, this is using the latest o3 model which is supposed to be the smartest at code and complex reasoning.
Also, if you look at the chatGPT log you will see I am able to get this table with little more than just a single large question.
The differences between this estimate and the one above are more different because the one below is all based on USD instead of AUD.
I haven't gone through to see if everything is correct, you will notice the variations are based on slightly different assumptions, for example the capacity factor of 35% is assumed for the wind farm in the table below, while it was only 22% for the projection above.
The other thing to realize is that this is quite overly fair to renewables (in my opinion) because you see how much space and transmission towers and land you need to cover to generate the same amount of total TWh as nuclear.
Realistically you would need to build dedicated supporting towns in-between these giant wind/solar projects, and the maintenance of these projects covering so much distance would have to be a big unknown cost extra.
In general this is what you get, nuclear wallops solar/wind+battery in powering Australia over a 60 year time frame. The table is created entirely by a pretty simple question to chatGPT, and it is all based from real world project data.
These tables that chatGPT generates reflect the conclusions I have come up with over 10 years ago when comparing renewables vs nuclear, and it is nice to see that we can put rather simple unbiased questions to chatGPT and see it generate similar answers to what I always saw when just looking at real world project data rather than theoretical "LCOE", which to me was just low IQ to believe as it is just what the sales people want you to believe over what the real world data presents.
The table below summarizes the key figures:
Also, if you look at the chatGPT log you will see I am able to get this table with little more than just a single large question.
The differences between this estimate and the one above are more different because the one below is all based on USD instead of AUD.
I haven't gone through to see if everything is correct, you will notice the variations are based on slightly different assumptions, for example the capacity factor of 35% is assumed for the wind farm in the table below, while it was only 22% for the projection above.
The other thing to realize is that this is quite overly fair to renewables (in my opinion) because you see how much space and transmission towers and land you need to cover to generate the same amount of total TWh as nuclear.
Realistically you would need to build dedicated supporting towns in-between these giant wind/solar projects, and the maintenance of these projects covering so much distance would have to be a big unknown cost extra.
In general this is what you get, nuclear wallops solar/wind+battery in powering Australia over a 60 year time frame. The table is created entirely by a pretty simple question to chatGPT, and it is all based from real world project data.
These tables that chatGPT generates reflect the conclusions I have come up with over 10 years ago when comparing renewables vs nuclear, and it is nice to see that we can put rather simple unbiased questions to chatGPT and see it generate similar answers to what I always saw when just looking at real world project data rather than theoretical "LCOE", which to me was just low IQ to believe as it is just what the sales people want you to believe over what the real world data presents.
The table below summarizes the key figures:
| Parameter | Solar (Topaz) | Wind (Shepherds Flat) | Nuclear (Barakah) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Capacity per Unit (MW) | 550 MW | 845 MW | 5600 MW (4 reactors @ 1400 MW each) |
| 2. Capacity Factor (CF) | 25% | 30% | 90% |
| 3. Average Output per Unit (MW) | 550 MW × 25% = 137.5 MW | 845 MW × 30% = 253.5 MW | 5600 MW × 90% = 5040 MW |
| 4. Average Annual Output per Unit (TWh/year) | 137.5 MW × 8760 h ≈ 1.20 TWh/year | 253.5 MW × 8760 h ≈ 2.22 TWh/year | 5040 MW × 8760 h ≈ 44.2 TWh/year |
| 5. Number of Units Required | ~208 units (250 TWh / 1.20 TWh ≈ 208) | ~113 units (250 TWh / 2.22 TWh ≈ 113) | ~6 units (250 TWh / 44.2 TWh ≈ 5.65 → 6) |
| 6. Total Installed Capacity (MW) | 208 × 550 MW = 114,400 MW | 113 × 845 MW = 95,485 MW | 6 × 5600 MW = 33,600 MW |
| 7. Total Energy Production Over 60 Years (TWh) | 250 TWh/year × 60 = 15,000 TWh | 2.22 TWh/unit × 113 units × 60 = ~15,060 TWh | 44.2 TWh/unit × 6 units × 60 = ~15,912 TWh |
| 8. Cost per Unit (USD) | $2.5 billion | $2 billion | $25 billion |
| 9. Total Initial Project Cost (USD) | 208 × $2.5 bn = $520 bn | 113 × $2 bn = $226 bn | 6 × $25 bn = $150 bn |
| 10. Replacement Costs Over 60 Years | Lifespan = 25 yrs ⇒ Need 2 extra rebuilds (at years 25 & 50) | Lifespan = 20 yrs ⇒ Need 2 replacements (at years 20 & 40) | Lifespan = 60 yrs ⇒ No replacements |
| Replacement total = 2 × $520 bn = $1.04 tn | Replacement total = 2 × $226 bn = $452 bn | $0 | |
| (Generation Only) Total over 60 Years (USD) | $520 bn + $1.04 tn = $1.56 tn | $226 bn + $452 bn = $678 bn | $150 bn |
| 11. Total Storage Costs (USD) | $800 bn (battery replaced every 15 yrs) | $800 bn (battery replaced every 15 yrs) | $0 (no large‐scale storage needed) |
| **Total Project Costs over 60 Years (USD)** | $1.56 tn + $800 bn = $2.36 tn | $678 bn + $800 bn = $1.48 tn | $150 bn |
| 12. Land Area Required (km²) per Unit | ~25 km² for 550 MW | ~78 km² for 845 MW | ~5 km² for 5600 MW |
| 13. Total Land Area Required (km²) | 208 × 25 = ~5200 km² | 113 × 78 = ~8814 km² | 6 × 5 = ~30 km² |
| 14. Average Lifespan (Years) | 25 | 20 | 60 |
| 15. Cost per MWh over 60 Years (USD/MWh) | $2.36 tn / 15,000 TWh = $157/MWh | $1.48 tn / ~15,060 TWh ≈ $98/MWh | $150 bn / ~15,912 TWh ≈ $9–$10/MWh |
Last edited:
stancecoke
1 MW
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2017
- Messages
- 2,071
Why didn't you quote the last sentence of the summary?
Why do you ask ChatGPT? Why should ChatGPT be more precise, than all the scientific studies that are done on this topic already?
I've added this simple question to your ChatGPT query
:
Last edited:
TheBeastie
1 MW
The whole chatGTP log is there, if there is anything of interest then it's there to read.
Because people lie, and most people who put out claims against what is in the table above usually have a financial interest in renewables and don't care about factual math based on real world projects.
The goal is that as AI improves to be god-like (with Trump giving chatGTP $500billion), it will eventually become the norm to ask it to compile a verifiable table for energy comparison, just like how chatGPT is now taking away most people's traditional Google search activities.
Most countries are going either or without nuclear, so asking about "mixing" makes little sense, especially when the cost of renewables keeps pushing up everyone's electricity bills because their real cost is coming through due to it being part of the real world rather than theoretical claims.I've added this simple question to your ChatGPT query
I have had a fair amount of experience posting my entirely AI generated table based on a simple question and the responses of those who don't like its results.
Most people who don't like the data presented post their own claims of output from chatGPT and NEVER share the chatGPT chatlog as I have, no one should be interested in "theoretical" data and chatGPT outputs that no one can verify themselves, the "share" button is very easy to use.
The results generated in the table above are just simple arithmetic based on real world energy project data, but instead of calculating them manually we can just ask AI to do it, for people that want to spread the renewables lies then it appears to be upsetting for them.
None of that table of costs etc should be a surprise to anyone who is familiar with the real world data, but remarkably it seems to shock a lot of people who get all their knowledge about energy generation from people that want to sell wind/solar.
Last edited:
This is the problem with chatGPT, it could be completely or partially wrong, you always need to verify information before posting.
The problem is that wrong information can waste other people's time.
Always vet and confirm!
stancecoke
1 MW
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2017
- Messages
- 2,071
Please quote sources, if you post this kind of postulation. There is not a single country, that uses nuclear power as the only power source. Nuclear power has only a very low part of the overall worldwide electricity production.
You should not believe the figures from the nuclear fanboys
No company, that wants to earn money, will build a nuclear power plant. They will never get a return of investment, as the produced kWh will be much too expensive, if you consider all costs (that your ChatGPT result ignores, as it's written in the summary
). We had that discussion on the German forum a few weeks ago on the example of a Finnish nuclear power plant.It's absolute nonsens to use batteries for storing electricity for a long term. As long as we have no better solution, gas peakers will have to fill the gap. As ChatGPT suggests for the cheapest energy mix
Last edited:
Has he..?
This is not the view of everyone.
IMHO using solar etc to take CO2 etc out of the air and put it back in a gas tank needs serious consideration,
Especially for transport where 68% of the fuel is burned overcoming inertia/weight and 98% of travel is Urban stop-go.
ie: Batteries-motor cannot yet win out over fuel tank-ICE in power to weight.
2 Fundamentals of Fuel Consumption | Assessment of Fuel Economy Technologies for Light-Duty Vehicles | The National Academies Press
And no; regen does not win out against lightness as it's not 100% efficient.
Hillhater
100 TW
Even those comparisons do not appear to include any cost for the additional and uprated transmission infrastructure required for the “Renewables” options.
Wind , Solar, and storage (batteries, Pumped Hydro, etc) are all “distributed” sources, located to best suit wind and solar harvesting. That by itself dictated significant extra transmission infrastructure, much of it needing to be seriously overrated to cater for “peak” generation loads rather than the CF rated output.
And In the case of storage facilities, those transmission systems would need to be bidirectional at those peak load levels !
None of those are costing that can be ignored, …as we are now finding out in Australia together with the land aquisition ecological and social impacts .
Nuclear, Gas, and Coal, generation can be effectively inserted into existing transmission and distribution networks with minimal disruption other than normal maintenance and replacement.
Hillhater
100 TW
“Ideal” is a very specific definition.
I doubt there will ever be an ideal generation source,.. everything is a compromise
Hydro would be high on the list, but it is not available universally, and has some ecological side effects in those areas it can be used.
Nuclear would be a more practical option, especially if the Thorium and SMR systems become proven, and waste issues can be resolved.
personally, i do not consider intermittent , weather dependant, sources such as Solar and Wind , as being remotely close to ideal.
True
What about the fact that it's more expensive than renewables? we don't see costs going down, either.
What if battery technology continues to improve, leaving the intermittency as a non issue?
Chalo
100 TW
And that's only the direct expenditure for nuclear power. When you include externalities, security, non-proliferation (and proliferation, to be fair), plus the costs and opportunity costs of perpetual waste storage, it would be the most expensive form of generation even if it were free in direct cost terms.
I think there exist some kinds of reactors that don't produce outputs useful for producing weapons.
Why can't waste storage be inexpensive, we as a species have perfected all kinds of drilling techniques. Put that stuff as far away from water as possible.
Probably the real reason we haven't seen a nuclear revolution is because the expense of doing it right is still too high.
IE: it's down to economics
Why can't waste storage be inexpensive, we as a species have perfected all kinds of drilling techniques. Put that stuff as far away from water as possible.
Probably the real reason we haven't seen a nuclear revolution is because the expense of doing it right is still too high.
IE: it's down to economics
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2022
- Messages
- 1,358
Doesn't need to be chemical batteries, I'm always crossing my fingers that someone wants to put more R&D into flywheel energy storage. It's unlikely, but it'd be cool to have.
Pumped hydro.
Not "energy vault" type gravity batteries, they're just impractical techbro fads. This video makes me laugh every time:
Hillhater
100 TW
Didn’t Beasties posts sway that view at all ?
.. or the introduction of Full System Costsings conpared to the LCOE data ?.
As for batteries to back up the intermittency of Wind and Solar,… it will require a complete revolution in storage technology before any semblence of capacity and cost become realistiic on a significant scale.
I saw that post, but the information isn't vetted so do you have a better source for me that includes some great breakdowns of the costs?
Because right now here in the USA, all nuclear = more expensive than renewables on whrs/kg per dollar value.
I'll read your source if you can find me a good one.
Because right now here in the USA, all nuclear = more expensive than renewables on whrs/kg per dollar value.
I'll read your source if you can find me a good one.
Hillhater
100 TW
whrs/kg per dollar. ?……an interesting metric !
i dont know you source for that conclusion, but i suspect it is not a comprehensive review of the full costs for renewables.
IE : any allowance for back up when the wind or sun cannot meet the demand (gas peakers, batteries, hydro, etc ).
Have a look at this to get a broader view..
Levelized Full System Costs of Electricity
Different electricity generating technologies are often compared using the Levelized Costs of Electricity (LCOE), which summarize different ratios of fixed to v
download.ssrn.com
Chalo
100 TW
Thorium cycle reactors. To date, they're (lots) more expensive yet and much less reliable. So, yeah... no. Cheaper to go clean or do without.
