Let's start with a couple of simple questions:
Do you know anything about planning and building large (or any size) energy projects?
Do you know what "overnight costs" are?
Overnight costs are the estimates of costs that don't include the cost of financing the project during construction. It is one measure of the cost of building something that looks at the total as if it were completed "overnight". The numbers in the OP are probably a reflection of this overnight cost number for nuclear plants and, as it is an average of a large number of cost claims, it is probably a reasonably good representation of what that number looks like
at this moment. Unfortunately, nuclear plants have both extremely high default rates and extremely high rates of cost overrun/inflation occurring during the construction phase.
Like any other facility to produce a commodity, the capital costs of construction are spread over the number of units of the commodity produced during a given time (10, 15 or 20 years for example). The "watt" number in "/watt" refers to the maximum rated production capacity of the power plant. This "installed watt" number is always different from the actual production amount because no plant produces continuously for 20 years. For example, modern wind turbines only produce as much as the wind blows, typically between 30-44% of their installed maximum production capability, nuclear plants in the US typically produce around 90% of their maximum production capability, and coal plants produce around 80% of their production capability. Forecasting the actual production amount is therefore very important in comparing the end price of electricity, as is correctly forecasting the price of fuels for the nonrenewable plants.
The four basic elements of the price are construction costs & financing, operating costs, maintenance costs, and fuels costs.
Decommissioning costs and the costs of waste disposal are also important considerations for some of the technologies.
A somewhat simple but effective means of comparing technologies is the amount of energy returned for the amount of energy invested. Because of growing energy demand, resource depletion and trends that more effectively incorporate external costs into the accounting, the Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROEI) for fossil fuels and nuclear are low and
declining. Solar and wind are 2X-5X as "profitable" in energy units as nuclear or fossil fuels and
climbing.
The $6K plus figure in the OP is almost certainly well below the final cost that each plant would actually post; and if we allocate to the survivors the costs of the 50% of the nuclear projects that can be expected to fail before producing a single watt, the (social) cost is certainly well above that quoted in the OP.
Nuclear is a very bad deal. Download the report at this link and see very specifically why:
http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2008/nuclear_power_report.html 
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
