I’m fairly confident about the nuclear financial stuff because I see pro-nuclear people saying that new nuclear is priced off the table in a competitive market. Some of the very largest utility companies which own reactors have “shelved” plans that were underway for building more.

The only places where new reactors are being built are where governments are putting a thumb on the scale in order to override the other options. The Chinese government, obviously, answers to no one. If they want to build reactors then they will.

In the US the only places where reactors are being built, or where plans to build are going forth, are where the state government is willing to force utility company customers to pay for the reactors rather than purchase their power from cheaper sources.

Whatever the projected price of nuclear is, 12 +/- cents/kWh, a plant has to sell 90% of the hours each year at that average price. When a lower supplier is on line, say wind at 5 cents, nuclear has to sell at a loss in order to force wind turbines to shut down. That loss has to be made up by earning more for the non-windy hours.

If you’ve got wind at 5 cents and solar at 10 you could crank up the cost of gas a heck of a lot and still come in under the price of nuclear when they are trying to price away their wind/solar hour losses.

Another way of putting this is if you are a utility company and need new generation you’re better off installing a mix of wind, solar and gas rather than building a reactor.

Wind and solar are never going to have fuel costs. And it’s likely that we’ll have reasonably priced storage in the next few years which will significantly cut the use of gas. Gas plants are cheap to build. Build some now and pay them off quickly. Then they can sit idle as deep backup for an almost 100% renewable grid.

Take a look at “*Actual Costs of Electricity (US cents/kWh)* “. Now, this is 2010 data and things have changed since then, but onshore wind generation, median price, is five cents/kWh. Transmission adds is about two cents more for a rough total of seven cents. They list a range of seven to twenty-three cents. Nuclear is not competing against twenty-three cent wind, that’s coming from older farms when costs were much higher, but against onshore that is currently being installed at less than what natural gas generation costs.

Then solar. Nineteen to sixty-two cents. Solar farms are now signing ten cent, 20 year contracts in the US. Installed solar prices in Germany are now at eight cents per kWh.

Then, the nuclear numbers they use. China ‘pays cash’ for their nuclear. Financing a nuclear plant roughly doubles the cost of nuclear.

Then their “US Electricity Production cost 1995 to 2008″ graph. First, we get almost none of our electricity from oil. That line should not even be on the graph. It serves no purpose other than to make nuclear look good.
Then, since 2008 the price of NG has fallen to about six cents, they cut off the graph in their favor. As much work as someone did pulling that report together there is no excuse for not extending the data forward.
Finally, it makes no sense to talk about the price of nuclear from old, paid off reactors if we’re talking about building new reactors. It’s like saying that it costs you less than $100 per month to drive your paid off 2003 Corolla so a new one would also cost you only $100 per month, operating costs plus payments.

BTW, I question their nuclear price. They claim about two cents (in 2008). The Department of Energy says that the cheapest nuclear in 2012 was four cents with the highest twelve and the median six cents. Three times their claim.

http://en.openei.org/apps/TCDB/ – Click on the LCOE tab.

Finally, a lot of what they get into is fuel cost. About how much better nuclear is than coal or gas. Solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, and tidal have zero fuel cost. A lot of their argument seems to be that they are better than the options that are worse than they are. The
important argument is which, overall, it the best.

There’s a reoccurring argument nuclear advocates like to make – “We’re better than coal”. It’s a bogus argument since we’ve got alternatives to both. It’s like one doctor saying you need your leg taken off because your toe is infected. Another says that they can fix you by taking off only your foot. Personally, I want antibiotics, thank you.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html

THe source is clearly not objective, but their facts seem pretty sound.

What’s surprising to me is that some paid off nuclear plants are no longer competitive. I can see that with a plant that needs major repairs, such as Oyster Creek. But even plants in decent shape seem to be in trouble. Kewaunee, as far as I know, is facing no repair costs. It is getting shut down simply because it isn’t making the owners any money.

Large array solar has now apparently hit $2/watt in Germany and I saw claims today that at least one US firm was installing for less than $2.50/watt. That’s going to get solar down to around the price of nuclear and give some more nuclear plants problems. It could very well force San Onofre to not be repaired. SoCal/San Diego got by this summer without San Onofre on line. A couple of large solar arrays and a bunch of new rooftop solar might make bringing the reactor back up unnecessary.

What we need now is some affordable/cheap storage.

It really seems like fracking and natural gas is the way to go.

Ok, I concede. Nuclear is too expensive. I found this too:

http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_and_global_warming/nuclear-power-cost.html

Even the small and modular ones seem to not be a good choice:

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/nuclear-expert-dispels-myths.html

“Let me state unequivocably that I’ve never met a nuclear plant I didn’t like,” said John Rowe, who retired 17 days ago as chairman and CEO of Exelon Corporation, which operates 22 nuclear power plants, more than any other utility in the United States.

“Having said that, let me also state unequivocably that new ones don’t make any sense right now.”

“I’m the nuclear guy,” Rowe said. “And you won’t get better results with nuclear. It just isn’t economic, and it’s not economic within a foreseeable time frame.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2012/03/29/exelons-nuclear-guy-no-new-nukes/

Even old nuclear is struggling. A reactor in Kewaunee, Wisconsin will be shut down this month because it can’t compete with other sources of electricity. The owner couldn’t operate it and make money and couldn’t find a buyer.

“(P)lain old economics could affect a lot more plants, including Crystal River, north of Tampa on Florida’s Gulf Coast, which has not run since September 2009, when it shut down for replacement of major components. The installation job may have damaged the containment building, which may not be worth the $1.3 billion or so it would take to fix.

In New Jersey, Exelon agreed in late 2010 to shut down the Oyster Creek reactor, the nation’s oldest operating commercial plant, by 2019 rather than rebuild its cooling system to meet environmental rules. In California, the San Onofre reactors closed in 2012 after apparently flawed new heat exchangers developed leaks.

Even plants with no pressing repair problems are feeling the pinch, especially in places where wholesale prices are set in competitive markets. According to an internal industry document from the Electric Utility Cost Group, for the period 2008 to 2010, maintenance and fuel costs for the one-fourth of the reactor fleet with the highest costs averaged $51.42 per megawatt hour.

That is perilously close to wholesale electricity costs these days.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/24/business/energy-environment/economics-forcing-some-nuclear-plants-into-retirement.html?_r=1

Nuclear isn’t viable in a free market. To avoid bankruptcy a reactor has to earn an average of at least 12 cents per kWh for roughly 8,000 hours per year. “New” wind is 5 cents per kWh. If there is competing wind on the grid then nuclear has to sell at a loss, at 5 cents, when the wind is blowing.

That means that nuclear has to sell at more than 12 cents the rest of the time.

Solar is now being installed in Germany for $2/watt. Those prices will show up here. That means electricity for about 8 cents per kWh. If the Sun is shining then nuclear has to sell at 8 cents.

Finally there’s natural gas. It’s producing for about 6 cents. Even if we put a big carbon tax on NG it would still be cheaper than nuclear.

Nuclear cannot compete.

Nuclear is not safe. Clearly nuclear is not safe. Just think about it. We have to build containment domes around reactors, build in all sorts of emergency systems, and surround the whole thing with armed guards.

Thorium fuel rods are in operation only in video fantasies. We can discuss thorium reactors (and the cost of their power) when someone actually builds one.

Nuclear takes too long to build. Ten years per reactor is not an unreasonable estimate. We have the ability to build only a handful of reactors at once. It would take a very long time to replace fossil fuels with nuclear and we need to get the job done quickly.

Finally, there are not enough sites where we could build a hundred or more new reactors. They need cooling water and they need a “backyard” that would admit them. Look at a map of the US, identify the places where there is adequate cooling water (mostly along the coasts) and think about whether those neighborhoods would put out a red carpet.

Best to not consider building on our inland lakes and streams. Look how the Mississippi is drying up at the moment. We’re likely to have many periods of severe drought in our future. Inland waters are heating as well. Reactors are already being shut down when local temperatures soar.

Renewable energy is undoubtedly the future, but it’s going to take a lot more research and development to make it truly cost-effective. Nuclear reached that level in the 70’s, and it’s only getting safer, cleaner and cheaper.

Listen to this podcast about nuclear power:
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4092

Solar and wind power are ALREADY cost-competitive in some regions and solar will be cheaper than fossil fuels (not even taking health, environmental, national security, grid, or other externalities into account) within a few years.

Wind is the cheapest form of new energy at the moment, which is one reason why it’s creaming other sources when it comes to new capacity to the grid.
And forget nuclear, it’s out of the question when we’re talking about price.
If you actually want to learn more about these topics, you can start with these:

http://cleantechnica.com/world-wind-power/
http://cleantechnica.com/2011/08/23/solar-power-intro-3-key-solar-power-points-top-solar-power-news/ http://cleantechnica.com/2011/05/02/wind-power-is-making-electricity-cheaper-exxon-wind-to-be-cheapest-source-of-electricity/
But I think it’s more likely you just popped in to dish out some
anti-renewable energy & pro-nuclear propaganda. So, please hop on to your
next site if that’s the case.

Zack, nuclear energy doesn’t have the risk that you say it has. Apparently Fukushima is a “disaster” in which no one has died and no one has been injured (except for a guy that had a heart attack inside the plant – totally unrelated) – same with Three Mile Island. And its funny because every year in the US alone, about 10,000 people will die of coal mining accidents and cancer resulting from poor ventilation. So much for Chernobyl, in which about 9,000 people died from the explosion and the fallout. Fukushima has demonstrated that a 9.0 earthquake and a 60 foot high tsunami cannot induce a Chernobyl-like disaster. It has demonstrated that one of the most powerful earthquakes and the largest tsunamis cannot wipe out a reactor. AND DON’T BLAME NUCLEAR ENERGY FOR CHERNOBYL – BLAME IT ON THE SOVIET COMMUNISTS.

And geothermal and tidal energy? Terrible. If you think about it mankind is becoming desperate with energy if we’re going to harness energy from some unusual source like that. The rocks are not hot enough and the tides are too weak. Simple. Again, mathematically prove me wrong and I’ll give in.

And for all of you people who think that we can power the world with renewables alone – how will you power the world at night? You really think that wind, geothermal, tidal, biomass, and hydrogen will be able to compensate for the lack of sunlight? I don’t. Besides they work in daylight too.

In support for civilian nuclear energy, it has killed less people in 60 years than coal has in a year. And a study showed that a solar panel the size of Europe (a little larger than the US) would be needed to power the city of London. Inefficiency to its max.

Or we can play the game the other way, and remove initial capital costs from wind and solar. Those cost something like a penny per KwH (or less!) if you don’t have to worry about the capital to build it.

> The US will continue their expansion of nuclear reactors.

That’s what the nuke lobby keeps telling us.

* More Bad News For Embattled Nuclear Power Industry: Reactor Proponents Are Batting 0-6 in US State Legislatures in 2011. http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/more-bad-news-for-embattled-nuclear-power-industry-reactor-proponents-are-batting-0-6-in-state-legislatures-in-2011-125072964.html

i didn’t actually create the infographic at all — just fed the company the general idea.