Cleaner, yes (arguably). But not cheaper - nuclear is very expensive!
The Google model suggests $2200/kW is the build price point at which all carbon emissions will be displaced.
To give an idea of the cost of nuclear, the UK is currently building it's first new nuclear station since the 1990s (Hinkley Point C), at an expected cost of £20.3b ($26.3b) for 3200 MWe capacity. That's $8230/kW - almost 4x more expensive than what's needed!
Construction cost is not the real criteria that should be used to evaluate power.
>...The levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) is a measure of a power source which attempts to compare different methods of electricity generation on a consistent basis. It is an economic assessment of the average total cost to build and operate a power-generating asset over its lifetime divided by the total energy output of the asset over that lifetime. The LCOE can also be regarded as the average minimum cost at which electricity must be sold in order to break-even over the lifetime of the project.
According to the chart in the wikipedia article, Hinkley Point C will have a strike price of about £93 per MWH. In comparison, ground solar is 80 onshore wind is 62 and offshore wind is 102.
According to the chart in the wikipedia article, Hinkley Point C will have a strike price of about £93 per MWH. In comparison, ground solar is 80 onshore wind is 62 and offshore wind is 102.
Note that the Hinkley C strike price is set in 2012 currency and will be adjusted for inflation, so will actually be significantly higher when it goes into operation.
It can't be directly compared to wind strike prices for current projects which are priced in the year they go into operation.
Offshore wind prices are falling rapidly due to intense competition, new technology, and economies of scale. Nuclear, not so much!
To make comparisons harder, you can get usage out of a wind farm that is partially constructed. If 1 of the 500 is turning it could be generating electricity. It's hard to use a partly constructed reactor, or even coal plant.
What makes this difficult to compare is that a nuclear plant will likely have a capacity factor > 90% and wind will be < 40% and solar < 10& (in UK). The low capacity factors will add in lots of additional cost if wind or solar is expected to some day be a significant source of power.
Strike prices are in terms of the energy actually produced, so they can be compared directly.
You can, of course, argue that baseload is more valuable than intermittent sources, but also remember that nuclear doesn't scale well - that strike price will still be paid in the middle of the night when there is low/no demand for the energy its producing. (For that reason, storage will help us make more efficient use of nuclear as well as renewables)
Wind is already a very significant energy source in the UK, supplying up to 50% of all demand on the windiest days, and 11.5% of all overall demand in 2016.
>Strike prices are in terms of the energy actually produced, so they can be compared directly.
In a sense. But as I said, the low capacity factors will add in lots of additional cost if wind or solar is expected to some day be a significant source of power. For example:
>... In June 2011 several energy companies including Centrica told the government that 17 gas-fired plants costing £10 billion would be needed by 2020 to act as back-up generation for wind. However, as they would be standing idle for much of the time they would require "capacity payments" to make the investment economic, on top of the subsidies already paid for wind.
If by ramping up wind power the country must spend huge amounts of money for capacity payments because the plants will (hopefully) sit idle, then that cost should be added to the cost of wind. Anything is better than using coal, but people should be honest about the real costs of their choices.
>...You can, of course, argue that baseload is more valuable than intermittent sources,
Is this actually a point that anyone disagrees with? As Bill Gates said in an interview "…They have this statement that the cost of solar photovoltaic is the same as hydrocarbon’s. And that’s one of those misleadingly meaningless statements. What they mean is that at noon in Arizona, the cost of that kilowatt-hour is the same as a hydrocarbon kilowatt-hour. But it doesn’t come at night, it doesn’t come after the sun hasn’t shone, so the fact that in that one moment you reach parity, so what? The reading public, when they see things like that, they underestimate how hard this thing is. So false solutions like divestment or “Oh, it’s easy to do” hurt our ability to fix the problems. Distinguishing a real solution from a false solution is actually very complicated."
>...but also remember that nuclear doesn't scale well - that strike price will still be paid in the middle of the night when there is low/no demand for the energy its producing.
"low/no demand"? What developed country on this planet has no demand for electricity at night? For example, in the New England area, on an average day the demand for electricity varies from about 11 to 17 GW. With the coming electrification of the vehicle fleet, I don't think electricity usage will decrease at night. In terms of grid stability, nuclear doesn't have a problem with load following, but since the fuel cost is so minimal, it is more economic to not do that.
>... (For that reason, storage will help us make more efficient use of nuclear as well as renewables)
I don't think anyone disagrees with that. (Gates is investing in 4th gen nuclear and energy storage companies so he is putting his money where his mouth is.)
>...Wind is already a very significant energy source in the UK, supplying up to 50% of all demand on the windiest days, and 11.5% of all overall demand in 2016.
50% of all demand on windy days? Do you have a citation for that? I would think that might be true for Scotland, but kind of surprising to me if it is true for the entire UK.
> In June 2011 several energy companies including Centrica told the government that 17 gas-fired plants costing £10 billion would be needed by 2020 to act as back-up generation for wind.
That was highly wishful thinking on behalf of gas plant operators. In fact, I believe only one new CCGT plant (Carrington) has been commissioned in the UK since 2010, and during this time several older plants were closed. No further gas plants are currently under construction in the UK or seem likely to be built in the near future, despite very low gas prices.
Storage technology and interconnects (including reversible interconnects such as the North Sea Link to Norway) are likely to be the better solution to intermittentcy.
> Is this actually a point that anyone disagrees with?
Baseload is an important part of the grid infrastructure, but it doesn't make sense to over-build it...
> In terms of grid stability, nuclear doesn't have a problem with load following, but since the fuel cost is so minimal, it is more economic to not do that.
Nuclear can not follow load like a gas turbine can! Sure, a few plants in France are built with the ability to scale down to 50% power or so (essential because of their high percentage of nuclear) but the vast majority around the world operate only at their full rated power.
Even when designed to ramp, it takes time to reduce and increase power in a reactor (hours rather than minutes, like in a gas turbine) and these ramps are performed to a schedule rather than in real-time response to grid demands.
> "low/no demand"? What developed country on this planet has no demand for electricity at night?
Supply can easily exceed demand at off-peak times if you have too much inflexible baseload power. Thus there would be no demand for the power produced from additional nuclear power plants at night.
It doesn't make sense to build expensive baseload just to satisfy demand peaks. There are cheaper options.
> 50% of all demand on windy days? Do you have a citation for that?
You're looking at capital cost. The plants last a very long time and have low operating costs, so the kWh cost is fairly low.
Playing around with Google's tool without changing any defaults, I'm able to get lower carbon emissions at the same cost by setting the nuclear level to the minimum demand, compared to using lots of wind/solar and filling up all the rest with gas.
Yes, as is the Google model. They suggest that if a 24/7 carbon-free energy source could be built at a capital cost of $2200/kW, then it would displace all carbon emissions within 27 years.
My point is that capital cost of nuclear is currently far above that level, which is why little nuclear is getting built (in most of the world) today.
Also, the operating cost of nuclear is high compared to most renewables! Particularly when you account for substantial end-of-life decommissioning costs, and the cost of secure waste storage far into the future.
(The decommissioning costs for the UK's MOX reactors is close to $100 billion)
Actually it's not, the model optimizes for the minimum overall LCOE (i.e. kWh cost).
Their paper's abstract does say: "DOSCOE shows that to cost-effectively remove the last 10-20% of fossil fuels requires a
moderate price on carbon and either low-cost nuclear power or carbon capture and sequestration. Alternatively, a hypothetical zero-carbon source needs to have a net present cost less than $2200/kW (with a 100% capacity factor) to displace existing fossil-fuel plants."
Actually it's not, the model optimizes for the minimum overall LCOE (i.e. kWh cost).
You're right. I meant that the Google abstract: the $2200/kW figure referring to capital cost.
Interestingly, the UK has enormous potential for tidal lagoon energy. These developers claim that it would be the cheapest energy of all new UK power projects:
A lot of nuclear power plant costs is manual construction labor. Construction costs are continuing to rise, because the fields efficiency improvements are far below the general economy.
The Google model suggests $2200/kW is the build price point at which all carbon emissions will be displaced.
To give an idea of the cost of nuclear, the UK is currently building it's first new nuclear station since the 1990s (Hinkley Point C), at an expected cost of £20.3b ($26.3b) for 3200 MWe capacity. That's $8230/kW - almost 4x more expensive than what's needed!