Talk:Economics of nuclear power plants/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Waste disposal section

Do the money figures in British Pounds in the "Waste disposal" section include the amortized costs of insuring against spillage events? 69.228.85.205 (talk) 00:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The section on waste disposal is practically useless in terms of economic analysis. The discussion of French policy is particularly obtuse. The key issue is the cost of various options for spent fuel management: direct disposal; reprocessing and disposal of high-level waste; and interim storage. Nothing in the waste section sheds any light on that question. The section doesn't even distinguish between "waste" and "spent fuel." Every analysis I have seen says that it is more expensive to reprocess spent fuel than to treat it as waste, at least as long as uranium remains relatively cheap. That analysis should be presented here. NPguy (talk) 04:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

New study: USD $0.25-0.30/kWh

Severance, C. (2009) "Business Risks and Costs of New Nuclear Power" posted a few days ago on ClimateProgress says:

Estimates for new nuclear power place these facilities among the costliest private projects ever undertaken. Utilities promoting new nuclear power assert it is their least costly option. However, independent studies have concluded new nuclear power is not economically competitive. Given this discrepancy, nuclear's history of cost overruns, and the fact new generation designs have never been constructed anywhere, there is a major business risk nuclear power will be more costly than projected. Recent construction cost estimates imply capital costs/kWh (not counting operation or fuel costs) from 17-22 cents/kWh when the nuclear facilities come on-line. Another major business risk is nuclear's history of construction delays. Delays would run costs higher, risking funding shortfalls. The strain on cash flow is expected to degrade credit ratings. Generation costs/kWh for new nuclear (including fuel & O&M but not distribution to customers) are likely to be from 25 - 30 cents/kWh.

Click on the 2nd link above to see the author's response to various criticisms of the study. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 13:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

This study uses only US plants as examples and sources and uses the most pessimistic numbers for all the calculations. For example, it states 80% for nuclear capacity factor, when even old plants have a capacity factor of 90%. Also, a simple text search for any of Canada, United Kingdom, France, Japan, India or Germany returns zero results. Much of this study is blatantly biased and does not fairly represent the cost of nuclear power.Nailedtooth (talk) 03:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Nuclear vendors assume 79% although the global average is only 71%. 90% assumes perfect plant components, routine refueling/maintenance, and flawless performance and only 7 plants have ever achieved it in the very short term.

An anti-nuke source gives what appears to be reliable numbers at [1] - can anyone verify these? Simesa (talk) 09:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

With the current tormoil in the financial markets (with something like 70% of overall cost being cost-of-capital), and unpredictable construction demand, we are going to see wildly different overall cost estimates at the moment. I don't think we should get too excited with estimates right now. Rwendland (talk) 09:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Units

There are a range of difference cost/energy units used in this article. They need to be rationalised into a single format. Fig (talk) 18:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Reprocessing is not a waste solution

One of the most oft cited nuclear myths was right here in Wikipedia:

France uses nuclear reprocessing for much of their waste. For the waste that cannot be reprocessed,

Reprocessing extracts fresh fuel from irradiated fuel. It does not, as this now edited out quote implies, reduce or deal with radioactive waste in any real way. Reprocessing dramatically increases the total volume of waste, shifts much of it to forms which are harder to handle, does not reduce the toxicity of the new waste or its level of radioactivity. Nor does it actually make economic sense when contrasted with newly mined uranium (tho neither of these take into account environmental coss). Paxuscalta (talk) 01:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Reprocessing reduces the total volume of waste by separating less useful fission products from spent fuel. The results are a small quantity - typically 1-5% of the fuel bundle by weight - of highly radioactive fission products that are counted as waste for light water reactors, and a large quantity of more useful isotopes that can be used to manufacture more fuel. Without reprocessing, the whole fuel bundle must be counted as 'waste' because nothing can be done with it other than storage. Reprocessing could, conceivably, result in more low-level waste, but boots, gloves, masks and potentially-contaminated lab equipment is not what is normally meant by 'nuclear waste'. Reprocessing reduces the volume of waste by separating useful fuel from those elements that cannot be used again, ignoring, of course, that many types of reactors can burn high-level waste from light water reactors as fuel.

High-level waste from reprocessing is typically more difficult to handle initially in it's elemental form due to it's high radioactivity, but high-level reprocessing waste is never stored like that. Typically, it's vitrified in glass and sealed in special containers, so it is ends up no more difficult to handle than spent fuel. Also, while reprocessing does not reduce the toxicity or radioactivity of the high-level waste itself, neither does not-reprocessing, so that's not really an argument against reprocessing in the first place.

The economic argument can change overnight. It's also possible to do things for reasons other than economics.

Nailedtooth (talk) 21:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Reprocessing by itself is not a waste management "solution." It costs a lot of money (compared to storing spent fuel) and does not reduce radioactivity. But it can be part of a waste management strategy. For example, removing and recycling fissionable material can reduce the waste management challenge from transuranics. In current practice this is not really the case, since it has proven impractical to recycle plutonium more than once, and recycling in thermal reactors actually builds up some of the more challenging transuranic isotopes. The remaining high-level waste forms may be easier to handle (store and dispose of) than spent fuel. Recycling approaches using fast reactors could change the calculus over the long term, although fast reactors have their own technical and economic challenges. The key cost argument is not to compare the cost of storing versus recycling spent fuel, but to compare system costs, which involves balancing the cost of producing and using fresh LEU fuel against the cost of producing and using recycled/MOX fuel. As long as uranium remains relatively cheap, reprocessing is unlikely to be cost-effective.

So the statement that "reprocessing is not a waste solution" is not a fact of nature, but the result of analysis. The result could change if the economic and technological facts change, though that is not likely for at least several decades. NPguy (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

More importantly, the vitrified waste is homogeneous and non-leeching, making geological internment safer, even when the engineered barriers eventually fail. Most of the arguments against Yucca Mountain cease to matter when using vitrified waste. Unlike unprocessed fuel assemblies, which release a few percent of their radioactive material as gas, liquid and dissolved solids in a short time once the container and cladding fail, vitrified waste erodes and releases material very slowly, resulting in an even, low level pollution stream. A program is already underway to vitrify and bury some of the residue form military reprocessing and store it at WIPP. See http://www.hanford.gov/page.cfm/WTP As for money, there is over $24 billion sitting in a waste disposal fund, from a special nuclear utility tax. See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/30/nuclear-waste-fund-us-24-billion_n_842762.html Plus there are gold, rare elements and medical isotopes in the waste that could become quite valuable, depending on a lot of different factors. Apparently there are no radioactive isotopes of gold, so its safe to handle once chemically separated. Crazy right? IDK112 (talk) 18:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Uranium section

"While the amounts of uranium used are a fraction of the amounts of coal or oil used in conventional power plants, fuel costs account for about 28% of a nuclear plant's operating expenses.[20] Other recent sources cite lower fuel costs, such as 16%.[22] Doubling the price of uranium would add only 7% to the cost of electricity produced."

How can that be? Let us assume the fuel costs account for about 16% of a nuclear plant's operating expenses. For every $100 spent to operate the plant $16 are spent on fuel and $84 on all the rest. Now, the uranium doubles in price. So 2*$16=$32 will be spend on fuel and still $84 on all the rest ceteris paribus. Insteat of spending $100 now $116 need to be spend which is a 16% price increase not 7%! Any explaination? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.240.213.23 (talk) 16:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The cost of natural uranium (0.7% U-235) is less than half the cost of uranium fuel, which has to be enriched (to ~3.5% U-235) and formed into fuel elements. See, e.g., http://www.wise-uranium.org/nfcc.html .

—WWoods (talk) 19:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Operating expenses are a fraction of electricity cost. Electricity cost also includes capital cost. Paul Studier (talk) 01:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The single largest cost of 'running' a nuclear power plant is making payments on the loan you took out to build it in the first place. So, capital costs, like he said. IDK112 (talk) 18:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

This section doesn't explain what kWe means —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.172.239 (talk) 11:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I've added a couple of links to Watt#Electrical_and_thermal_watts.

—WWoods (talk) 17:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Cost comparisons with other power sources

Should we remove the Cost comparisons with other power sources section? It is hard enough to get fair estimates of nuclear costs, without getting into fair costing of other sources.

In particular I'd like to delete numbers from the outdated and inaccurate 2004 RAE study (eg from the low 7.5% discount rate used). If the RAE study had been correct unsubsidised nuclear would be significantly cheaper than coal; instead we have EDF in the UK asking for a carbon pricing floor for coal and gas to create suitable conditions for "final investment decision to make in 2011" on building nuclear in the UK,[2] which shows the RAE study numbers are no longer valid.

If we do want to keep cost comparisons, the recent EU evaluation [3] could be a good candidate. Rwendland (talk) 16:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Personaly i think the relative cost comparisions should be kept in - costs of nuclear or anything else are pretty meaningless on their own. The object is surely to compare different power sources at least coming from the same assumptions. And yes the RA reference should be taken out, becaue it is basically stupid - as the detailed UKERC report indicates though they are too polite to say that.Engineman (talk) 18:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it makes sense to keep a section on cost comparisons with other energy sources. The economics of nuclear power depend on the relative costs of nuclear and other energy sources. NPguy (talk) 01:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

might point out that the environmentalists purposely try to drive up nuclear costs here in the U.S. with their lawyers filing endless suits - then they come out with with their disingenuous cost comparisons and try to claim that wind or solar are even in the same ballpark... 75.210.208.142 (talk) 05:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

WSJ is an opinion piece that doesn't actually link to the specific EIA document http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy2/pdf/chap5.pdf . The way it is presented, which you would expect from an opinion piece, grossly presents a loopsided view. Mature technologies obviously are supported less on a kW basis. But looking at the gross amounts we get things like coal getting 2.1 billion in production subsidies. Meanwhile solar, while being shown as a cash cow, is only getting a 14 million dollar production subsidy. Or supposedly mature nuclear still getting 1.2 billion. And that doesn't even talk about R&D differences. Without context, this paragraph presents a decided sqewed viewpoint. Great for an opinion piece, not so much for an encyclopedia. An viewpoint on the context of subsidies can be seen at http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/blogs/republican/energy-subsidies-0312 .

It should be mentioned that the source for the final paragraph of this section is a pamphlet produced by a law professor, albeit one who has specialized in energy and climate policy. The pamphlet linked as source itself is a series of unsupported assertions. Not only that, these assertions, while purporting to establish uranium as a risky source of fuel, fails to compare uranium supply and volatility to other fuel sources. In my opinion, the final paragraph should be taken out entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckl2135 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

I have heard (though of course I don't know where exactly) that the cost in greenhouse gases for building of the plant, plus maintenance, plus the carbon footprint of mining is greater than the nuclear power plant saves in the first place. Is there a good place to research that? In addition, would it go in this article? Hires an editor (talk) 00:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The best place to start would be to ask "compared to what?" Does nuclear save carbon output compared to doing nothing? No. Does nuclear safe carbon output compared to coal? Probably. Nailedtooth (talk) 20:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Amory Lovins puts it this way:

"Each dollar spent on a new reactor buys about 2-10 times less carbon savings, 20-40 times slower, than spending that dollar on the cheaper, faster, safer solutions that make nuclear power unnecessary and uneconomic: efficient use of electricity, making heat and power together in factories or buildings ("cogeneration"), and renewable energy."

It only looks good if you compare it to coal.

Of course, increasing efficiency can increase demand, rather than decrease it (Jevons paradox), cogeneration is coal/gas power (albeit more efficient coal power) and renewable have issues scaling up (whereas nuclear starts big and scales to huge easily).

Point is: energy issues are complicated. The more you know! Nailedtooth (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Obvious rejoinder to the point you brought up is that cost of efficiency measures is immaterial to an article about costs of energy generation. Aside from semantics, it should not be ignored that efficiency measures have diminishing returns and cannot help us meet our energy needs or abate climate change. Efficient use of electricity, etc. will not make nuclear power or other forms of clean energy generation unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckl2135 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: Fuel Costs for various plant types

A statement in the article states that natural gas, as a fuel is most expensive. This may no longer be true, although it probably was valid when written. As of 2012, in the U.S. it is less costly to use natural gas as a fuel than coal. Through first quarter the use of natural gas has vastly increased (35% increase) and the use of coal has decreased (25% decrease) as compared to the prior year. That's a huge change and indicative that it's cheaper to run the natural gas plants than the coal plants. The lowest cost fuel is likely to differ throughout the world. Oil or petroleum fuel is by far the most expensive in the United States. Too bad for you folks in Hawaii. --71.214.208.91 (talk) 15:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Public health impacts?

Should we include the data on p. 20 here? 67.41.200.185 (talk) 23:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

OMX Izhora?

The linked source, Nuclear Engineering International, refers to 'OMX Izhora'. However, according to 'world nuclear news': "As well as JSW, the very heavy forging capacity in operation around the world today is in China (China First Heavy Industries and China Erzhong) and Russia (OMZ Izhora)." [4]. OMZ exists and makes reactor pressure vessels, whereas OMX does not appear to exist. This seems to be a typo, so I'm going to change it. - Crosbie 19:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Cost per kW·h

It's good to have updated info, but predicting future costs for something as complex as nuclear power is not cut-and-dried. Most of the variation in cost here appears to be due to different methodologies. For instance, the US EIA in 2006 estimated $0.059/kWh, then a 2008 study estimated $0.25-$0.30, then a 2009 study came up with $0.084. Quite a wide variation, but different economists will come up with different analyses, and Wikipedia should reflect the diversity of mainstream professional opinion. If any of these estimates are from unqualified or unreliable sources, of course, they should be eliminated. Also, if the author has updated his study, his latest conclusions should be presented (I presume that the US EIA has updated since 2006 - I'll look). Plazak (talk) 04:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the numbers we have are not very comparable, to a very large part because they use different discount rates (interest rates) for the cost of capital - the dominant part of costs. The best solution I feel would be to create a table of studies, major parameters, and results - but I'm not volunteering the time to do this difficult task!! I'm against deleting earlier versions of studies in general, as WP is in part a historical record, and retaining this history of varying estimates is of value in understanding the ascendence and decline of the so-called nuclear renaissance. eg for the seminal MIT study both the 2003 and 2009 versions should be summarised. Rwendland (talk)

Proliferation and Terrorism

The last sentence in this chapter is far away from touching the relevant fields of concern in both proliferation and terrorism prevention. BR MG 2013-10-17 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.5.6.220 (talk) 12:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Recent developments section - not so recent

The "Recent developments" section is a disorganized hodgepodge of unrelated items, some not recent (going back to 2007) and some having little or nothing to do with nuclear plant economics. I don't think that this section is needed, but assuming we keep it, what should qualify as "recent"? Plazak (talk) 05:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

This Article reeks of Bias

The sources cited are disproportionately critical of nuclear power plant economics. Prominent critics of nuclear power are quoted directly and extensively while prominent supporters are rarely quoted if at all. Pro-nuclear viewpoints are virtually unrepresented and sources that show nuclear energy in a favorable light are questioned in an apparent attempt to poison the well.

One paragraph addresses the problem of nuclear power plant aging like this:

New reactor designs have been proposed but there is no guarantee that the reactors will be designed, built and operated correctly.[61] Mistakes do occur and the designers of reactors at Fukushima in Japan did not anticipate that a tsunami generated by an earthquake would disable the backup systems that were supposed to stabilize the reactor after the earthquake.[62][63] According to UBS AG, the Fukushima I nuclear accidents have cast doubt on whether even an advanced economy like Japan can master nuclear safety.[64] Catastrophic scenarios involving terrorist attacks are also conceivable.[61]
An interdisciplinary team from MIT have estimated that given the expected growth of nuclear power from 2005 – 2055, at least four serious nuclear accidents would be expected in that period.[65][66] To date, there have been five serious accidents (core damage) in the world since 1970 (one at Three Mile Island in 1979; one at Chernobyl in 1986; and three at Fukushima-Daiichi in 2011), corresponding to the beginning of the operation of generation II reactors. This leads to on average one serious accident happening every eight years worldwide.[63]

In terms of nuclear accidents, the Union of Concerned Scientists have stated that "reactor owners ... have never been economically responsible for the full costs and risks of their operations. Instead, the public faces the prospect of severe losses in the event of any number of potential adverse scenarios, while private investors reap the rewards if nuclear plants are economically successful. For all practical purposes, nuclear power's economic gains are privatized, while its risks are socialized".'[67]

The Italic part can be seen as a pro-nuclear viewpoint offering a solution to the problem, though it is hard to tell considering that it does not even make up a whole sentence. The rest of the sentence and the entire paragraph (bolded) is critical of future power plants. This is not even close to being a balanced, neutral and impartial point of view.89.160.217.101 (talk) 14:03, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

You say the article "reeks of bias". Please provide full details of recent, reliable, unbiased, sources which you would like to see included. See WP:RS. Thanks. Johnfos (talk) 16:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

You may also wish to consider becoming a registered user, see WP:IP ... Johnfos (talk) 07:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

No ongoing discussion, so I will remove the POV tag. If discussion starts again, I would suggest inviting energy economics expert, Prof John Quiggin (User:John Quiggin), to join in... Johnfos (talk) 09:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

This is one of a number of articles written by an anti-nuclear extremist. I have edited "highly toxic" out of the front of 240000 year waste because it's wrong. The 240000 year waste is has a very low level of radioactivity (approximately 1/240000th of a nuclide with a 1 year half life.) I have added an alternate opinion re the economics, and exposed Ian Lowe as the fake expert he is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graemem56 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Plazak has edited out some of my changes. In particular he edited out Jeffrey Sachs opinion but left John Quiggin's in. I'm going to put it back in. As it stands, it quotes 1 economist on one side (which in my view is the minority view), but not on the other. Maybe they should both go.Graemem56 (talk) 08:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I have reinstated the Jeffrey Sachs comment, as I said we either have both he and Quiggin or neither. Lowe is a fake expert but it just a stir-up entry. Maybe he should go completely, just have Quiggin vs Sachs. The line "However, nuclear supporters continue to champion reactors, often with proposed new but largely untested designs, as a source of new power." It's a very one-sided comment. I would prefer "There are a number of exciting proposals for new reactors which exemplify the great promise that nuclear fission shows in providing abundant cheap energy."Graemem56 (talk) 04:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

There are two issues here. An obscure economist is quoted saying nuclear energy is too expensive, but whenever I put in an opinion from an economist that says the opposite, it keeps getting edited out - And why on earth is a crackpot philosophy professor like Lowe quoted at all? I'm also appalled that you think "Furthermore, here are a large number of exciting proposals for new reactors which exemplify the great promise that nuclear fission shows in providing abundant cheap energy" is bad but "However, nuclear supporters continue to champion reactors, often with proposed new but largely untested designs, as a source of new power." is OK.

I'm quite willing to compromise but we either have Quiggin and Sachs, or we have neither. And either Lowe goes, or the argument is balanced with another balancing opinion. I only added my "exciting new proposals" when Rosoft kept editing Sachs out and editing the "nuclear proponents" back in. I will be happy to find words intermediate between the two.Graemem56 (talk) 03:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Rwendland has also edited "ongoing costs of storing low level nuclear waste for over 240,000 years" and changed it to "ongoing costs of storing high level nuclear waste for over 240,000 years" Low level waste is in fact correct, although the 240000 years seems to have been plucked out of the air, maybe we should not be specific about the time.

The difference between high-level and low-level waste goes like this- ¹³¹I is short-lived and high-level. ¹²⁹I is low -level waste and long-lived. But both of them only decay once. One mole (6x10²³ atoms) of ¹³¹I decays the same amount (3x10²³ decays) in 8 days that one mole (6x10²³ atoms) of ¹²⁹I decays in 15.7 million years.

So ¹³¹I decays 700 million times faster than ¹²⁹I, but ¹²⁹I lasts 700 million times longer. 130gms of ¹³¹I will release 90 Kw of energy whilst 130gms of ¹²⁹I releases 25 microwatts of energy.Graemem56 (talk) 03:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

While I disagree with Graemem56 on specifics, and, as he notes, I have reverted some of his edits, he is right that the article is biased. In particular, the first paragraph of the "Overview" section should be a balanced summation of both sides, rather than a string of quotes by anti-nuclear economists. As to high-level vs. low-level waste, isn't there some standard definition we can reference to settle that issue? Plazak (talk) 05:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Plazak. I went to Wikipedia Help to ask what to do, and they said we should be able to sort it out on the Talk Page. Well Rosoft never writes on the talk page and has started to become abusive.Graemem56 (talk) 08:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I have again edited out changes which removed balance, and I will keep doing so. If we have Quiggin, we have Sachs.Graemem56 (talk) 15:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Copied from User:Graemem56's talk page:

"There are a large number of exciting proposals for new reactors which exemplify the great promise that nuclear fission shows in providing abundant cheap energy" is a statement of opinion which doesn't belong in the article.
Likewise, you can't state as a fact that somebody is a fake expert. Either Ian Lowe's statement can be included without editorializing, or it should not be included at all.

It may be the case that the article is biased, but you can't counter bias by adding more partisan material. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 15:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I would like to revisit the issue of bias here. In particular the Quiggin/Lowe matter. The succeeding paragraph reads much better as the beginning of the article. Maybe the Quiggins/Lowe paragraph should be moved after that one. If no one objects, I will move it in 2-3 days and changed the quotes to peer-reviewed ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graemem56 (talk • contribs) 12:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Quiggins' position is unsourced, so that can be cut until someone supplies a citation. I also think it appropriate to identify Lowe as an antinuclear activist, assuming that is the case. The second paragraph is better for the start of the section, because it at least attempts to summarize the topic, but some of the wording is terribly POV. The second paragraph should be put first, but reworded to be more NPOV. For that matter, the current first paragraph should also be reworded to be more NPOV. Regards. Plazak (talk) 05:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The following proposed lead for the overview section I think would summarize the issue more fairly. What do you think? Plazak (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

"Nuclear power is controversial for reasons other than economics, and the economics of nuclear power is likewise controversial. Much of the economic disagreement centers on externalities, such as the economic costs and benefits of safety, subsidies, waste disposal, and environmental effects. Critics write that the true costs are underestimated, and nuclear power is more expensive than other sources; they point to nuclear plants in the US which have shut down for economic reasons. However, other economists calculate that costs for nuclear electricity are competitive, and some countries, such as China, India, Russia, and South Korea are in the process of adding numerous new nuclear power plants."

I'd say most of the economic disagreement is centered on the cost of capital (actual, or assumed in studies) - in levelized cost analysis this is essentially the "discount rate" used. The cost of capital usually constitutes somewhere between 60% to 80% of electricity cost, so it is no surprise this is the most important factor. Many studies like to use 8% discount rate, but actual builds outside the regulated/nationalized sector seem to have cost of capital (including risk premium) somewhere from 10% to 15% (as the MIT study argues). Rwendland (talk) 23:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Good call. Cost of capital (discount rate and build time) is the 800-pound gorilla of nuclear economics. Plazak (talk) 05:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

small nuclear

I would love to see something on tiny nuclear. The designs that operate at high temperature but low pressure can get better efficiencies than the low temperature (boiling water) and high pressure, and seem safer. ( Martin | talk • contribs 00:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC))

Cost per kWhr. Which is greater 4 or 7?

The paragraph titled cost per kWhr also has construction cost - cost per kW. One sentence says $7/kW. The other says $4/kW, but meaning that $4 is more than $7. Here are the two sentences in question -

1) In June 2008 Moody's estimated that the cost of installing new nuclear capacity in the U.S. might possibly exceed $7,000/KWe in final cost.

2) A 2008 study concluded that if carbon capture and storage were required then nuclear power would be the cheapest source of electricity even at $4,038/kW in overnight capital cost.

Ok, overnight means assume that the plant was built overnight, and exclude the fact (the interest?) that it takes 5 years to build. But still. Here are some other numbers If overnight means excluding finance charges, then I do not think that that number should ever be used casually, for clarity, since the bankers do insist on being paid. ( Martin | talk • contribs 01:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC))

according to the source you mentioned, overnight cost means "no escalation or financing costs". Anyway I don't see why you think these cost estimates are wrong. They come from different sources and they are calculating costs in two different ways. --Ita140188 (talk) 02:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I have just had another look at this page after a while. The bias is appalling. I have previously suggested that only peer-reviewed articles be quoted. I have just now done a search on sciencedirect.com http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1738573315000224 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261915005656 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142151400038X http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421514003693 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211467X14000601 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261914007491 http://ac.els-cdn.com/S1738573315000819/1-s2.0-S1738573315000819-main.pdf?_tid=143bf5c2-1e20-11e5-97b3-00000aab0f27&acdnat=1435556063_0928e9a381ddce0f2eebb97aca556dbf http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0196890415003957/1-s2.0-S0196890415003957-main.pdf?_tid=004f3ace-1e20-11e5-93c0-00000aab0f01&acdnat=1435556029_1e667d738a45cfdbb96bdc346a745698 are relevant are 5 articles pertinent to nuclear costs available without payment — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graemem56 (talk • contribs) 05:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

As it stands the first paragraph is incomplete and does not show well enough the benefits of nuclear energy. The current document is very American and does not take into account China and Japan.

I would like the first paragraph to be following:

The economics of new nuclear power plants has been challenged by a mix of controversy and political interference. After going through both an expensive application process, review and licensing, nuclear power plants typically have high capital costs for construction. They typically set aside funds on a periodic basis to manage the costly decommissioning. Nuclear waste handling is also a significant cost whether it be stored or recycled. The current benefits of nuclear energy include that it is base load power with zero greenhouse gas emissions, small land footprint for their energy output, great deal of energy for small amount of fuel. While we are targeting lower carbon emissions Nuclear plants can replace fossil fuel plants that release carbon dioxide. They can be maintained and upgraded to last up to 80 years. Rmaltese (talk) 06:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)Rick Maltese username: rmaltese

POV tag

I have marked the article as breaching the NPOV rule for reasons as follows; it has blatant POV-pushing serving up the conclusions of its' editors from the first paragraph onwards, the wording and editing style is amateurish and unencyclopedic, most of the talking points of its editors are laid en masse before the index of the article is provided. The editing history over the past 2-3 years has a handful of people doing a significant part of the editing.

Furthermore, I am justifying this NPOV tag with that, for an article of this size and cite mass, combined with the significant contemporary relevance and gravitas of the topic covered, also combined with the near-zero activity on the talk page, it should not go without significant scrutiny and continued oversight of its content likewise its responsible editors in the future. - Peter Bjørn Perlsø (talk) 16:46, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Your rationale for the POV tag is very broad, without reference to a single problematic source. I did a quick check of the first 20 references, and found the sources quite acceptable. I looked for any source material by Greenpeace or other environmental group, but saw none. I looked for sources by alternative energy groups and found none. The sources used in the opening of the article seem reliable and mainstream to me, and include World Nuclear News, Nuclear Engineering International, etc. I'm having difficulty finding details of the POV-pushing which you suggest is driving the article. Johnfos (talk) 05:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Economics of nuclear power plants. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Economics of nuclear power plants. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

POV tag

Citing Johnfos' response to my adding the NPOV tag:

"Your rationale for the POV tag is very broad, without reference to a single problematic source. I did a quick check of the first 20 references, and found the sources quite acceptable. I looked for any source material by Greenpeace or other environmental group, but saw none. I looked for sources by alternative energy groups and found none. The sources used in the opening of the article seem reliable and mainstream to me, and include World Nuclear News, Nuclear Engineering International, etc. I'm having difficulty finding details of the POV-pushing which you suggest is driving the article. Johnfos (talk) 05:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)"

As for the point of my original post was amply clear on what was wrong in the article, I find it puzzling that you entirely ignored it. Whatsmore in that you claim the first twenty sources as justification for your (unclear) point, you say that you went through these as acceptable source material. As time allowed, so did I, or rather I did the first 25; I found that a fair number of these were pertinent and reasonable. On the other hand, a significant number were at best vague on the topic, as worse they were entirely absent or inaccessible to any common WP reader. Examples: Ref 6 is paywalled. 20 paywalled. 7 is dead; checking with archive.org it has been dead for three years (going further, the only relevant content of the presentation that I eventually found was one line of text that was not elaborated upon at all). 15 dead. 16. opinion piece that is in itself is unsorced, and the vague reference to a study that is already referred to. Same for another, only that the source for that is entirely missing. Etc. This is shoddy sourcing by the various editors that have contributed to this article.

As before, your conclusions based upon these sources are puzzling.

As time allows I will edit the article to raise its standard from the current questional quality, and keep the NPOV tag during that process until it has been corrected to a reasonable standard of presentation and phrasing as well as the impertinent refs removed. Be so kind as NOT to remove it while this is ongoing. - Peter Bjørn Perlsø (talk) 13:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Jonfos is correct that the sources are pretty mainstream, but I believe that some appear to be misused in a POV manner. Examples from the Overview section. The start of the 2nd paragraph reads:

“Independent reviews often show that nuclear power plants are necessarily very expensive,[24][25]”

Yet neither reference 24 nor 25 is about nuclear power plants. One is about trade between Europe and South Korea, and the other is about Russian environmental programs. I couldn’t find anything in either source to support the statement, although it may be hidden in there somewhere. Certainly neither of these cited sources is an “independent review” of nuclear power economics.

“According to the World Nuclear Association, the global trend is for new nuclear power stations coming online to be balanced by the number of old plants being retired.[39]”

Yet when I look at reference 39, the first bullet point reads: “Nuclear power capacity worldwide is increasing steadily, …” The statement in the Wikipedia article, while literally true about the number of reactors, is misleading, because it ignores the more important point in the source about capacity expansion. Such cherry-picking is highly POV.

I agree with DJSupreme that a POV tag should not be arbitrarily removed before the topic has been aired on the talk page. Regards. Plazak (talk) 17:10, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Plazak, for your thoughtful comment, but I really do have to wonder if WNA material is a quality source. I much prefer the feature articles in Nuclear Engineering International, which are less confusing and less contradictory. A recent multi-authored article in Nature Energy (2016) talks about the "gradual decline" of nuclear power:

"The overwhelming factor shaping the future of nuclear power is its lack of economic competitiveness. Nuclear plants cost a lot to build and operate. This limits the rate of new reactor construction and causes utility companies to shut down old reactors."

-- Johnfos (talk) 05:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

To recap your recent posts: You defended the WNA as "quite acceptable," when it was used as a source of a cherry-picked factoid that reflected negatively on nuclear power. The source is not contradictory; it just points out that the reactors put online have larger capacities than those retired, so there was capacity growth even though the number of operating reactors was static. I believe that this would not be confusing to most Wiki readers.

As for the source you quote, it would appear to belong in the article. But there is a diversity of expert opinion, and the article should reflect that. I have not yet read the cited source, but economics is an inexact science, and it would be a mistake to present any study as the Universal Gold-Plated Truth, given the different conclusions arrived at by different experts. What different conclusions? For instance, the US EIA 2015 cost estimates for the United States put nuclear in the mid-range, very similar to conventional coal plants - more expensive than natural gas, but that that may be a peculiarity of the North American market: (Annual Energy Outlook 2015). And then there is the fact of those 64 nuckear plants currently under construction around the world: (IAEA Power Reactor Information System). Obviously, there are many utilities, especially in Asia, which have concluded that nuclear is economically viable. According to the IAEA link, since the start of 2015, 13 new nuclear reactors were put online, versus 7 retired, for a worldwide net capacity gain of 2.3%. Not a large increase, but quite the opposite of a decline, gradual or not. Regards. Plazak (talk) 03:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

France electricity prices

I take issue with this sentence in the Overview section: "This is despite the fact that the cost of electricity in nuclear France is approximately half of that in Germany and Denmark.[29][30][31]" Of the three supporting references, one is a dead link, one a brief BBC article and the other bill prices for EU countries using two methodologies. Retail costs of energy are only one part of a LCOE equation. France's nuclear fleet is run as a state owned enterprise and the French government has absorbed huge levels of debt to allow for the retail pricing of energy in a way that is disassociated from the true cost of generating that energy, remediation costs on mines and plants has not even been discussed yet let alone put aside and these costs can be very high indeed for NPPs and uranium mines. (recently Avera, the company that built many of the NPPs has faced bankruptcy and received more state assistance http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/04/areva-edf-idUSL5N0YQ13720150604)

References coming on the LCOE of the French nuclear fleet that will reflect cost much better than French tariff prices.

Presumably Germany and Denmark were chosen for comparison because they have been the two leading nations of not just Europe but the world in getting the renewable energy industry established and competitive with fossil fuels. The cost of renewable energy has raised the cost of domestic energy bills in Germany very marginally over the past decade, and Germans still pay lower energy bills than many European nations because their housing is so energy efficient. http://energytransition.de/files/2015/06/GET_en__6A1_renewables_not_the_driver_for_prices.png http://energytransition.de (see tab 7 Questions & Answers first question) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.224.228.87 (talk • contribs) 02:50, 24 August 2015‎ (UTC)

France is no longer seen as a "success story", and there are many changes going on there, as discussed in the WP Nuclear power in France article. Johnfos (talk) 02:12, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Expert needed

There has been much poorly sourced, or unsourced material (see 12 May 2016), recently added to the article, which has made it a real "hotch potch" of poorly structured (and often outdated or undated) ideas and views. An experienced editor in energy economics, using reliable and scholarly sources, could help. Johnfos (talk) 01:03, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Regarding comparison of economics of power sources, cost (including subsidy) is the relevant parameter, not price which includes arbitrary taxes for government consumption. TGCP (talk) 22:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Lead exposing the real deal

The economics of new nuclear power plants is a controversial subject, since there are diverging views on this topic (particularly around risk externalities involving disaster, cleanup, proliferation, disposal and resource conflict), and multibillion-dollar investments ride on the choice of an energy source. Many of the externalities are black swans and thus hard to price in conventional economic models, whereas the operational economics are well understood.

My latest edit in bold. My own view on nuclear is show me the fuel cycle, and let's do the math (with all externalities present and accounted for, in so far as one can). I guess that makes me a techno-optimist with a skeptical bent. In my opinion, the proper way to balance what I've added is to make a comment to the effect that the first/second generation was developed against the backdrop of the Cold War (very different social priorities) and a lot has changed in our technological capabilities since the 1950s (witness the air-mile fatality plunge in commercial aviation over the same period). But for that, one would need a proper cite. Freeman Dyson has written revealingly about the priority inversion of small and hot over large and safe stemming from the first nuclear submarines, and the toe hold this created within the civilian space (probably a chapter of In Praise of Diversity, but a that's a long time ago for my aging mind). I feel the risk externality issue needs to be front and center in the first paragraph, because the rest of the article will naturally be biased toward the kinds of things one can state with certainty (i.e, a detailed litany of well-understood operational economics). On the other side, Nassim Taleb and Cathy O'Neil have both argued against excessive reliance on models in domains where models are incapable of capturing or assessing the true exogenous risk. — MaxEnt 16:50, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Economics of nuclear power plants. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Removal of dead links instead of replacement with archive.org versions?

Regarding this edit does anyone mind if I replace the deletions with archive.org Wayback Machine links? No. 4 (talk) 20:55, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Economics of nuclear power plants. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Economics of nuclear power plants. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion of time to build new nuclear plants needed

With the latest IPCC report indicating the world needs to reduce CO2 emissions by 45% over the next 12 years (by 2030), it seems really important to discuss not only the cost of new nuclear plants, but also how quickly they can be built at the scale required to help produce those CO2 emissions reductions, since the effort to curb climate change seems to be the impetus behind a lot of the recent calls for new nuclear generation among nuclear advocates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.46.250.140 (talk) 21:25, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Political posturing?

Phrases such as 'However, some "nuclear cheerleaders" and lobbyists in the West continue to champion reactors, often with proposed new but largely untested designs, as a source of new power.[155][157][158][159][160][161][162]', tend to confirm the impression that this article is nothing more than the promotion of a political action, seeking to diminish the very real advantages of nuclear fission as a satisfactory energy source.

It is clear that the contributing authors have no intention of presenting a 'neutral point of view'. The whole article should be deleted forthwith, it has no place in an encyclopedia.--Damorbel (talk) 07:21, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

As for your specific concern it can be noted that the phrase "nuclear cheerleaders" is a quote from the first cited source, Forbes which bases its article on an analysis from Morningstar, Inc.. Lklundin (talk) 07:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Still, I agree with Damorbel, this article needs to be cleaned up to present a neutral point of view. --Ita140188 (talk) 08:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Damorbel! Lklundin is making the mistake of imagining that providing a statement comes from a reliable published source it must be a neutral point of view. Over the years, many statements have been erased because they didn’t represent a neutral point of view despite the fact that they came from a reliable source. Published sources aren’t required to project a neutral point of view.

Some parts of ~~#Other economic issues~~ #Recent trends read like a newspaper article. It must be cleaned up. Dolphin (t) 09:03, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Since these views came to light, substantial deletions have been made by Professor John Quiggin of Queensland University. See the aggregate changes. Dolphin (t) 12:40, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

2019 DIW Study

The 2019 DIW study, which claimed that nuclear power has not been profitable, was refuted by another paper by Wendland and Peters.

See: Das DIW-Papier über die „teure und gefährliche“ Kernenergie auf dem Prüfstand, Wendland, Peters; 2019

Sadly, it's only available in german as far as I know. How can we incorporate this into the article?

--94.222.186.159 (talk) 08:54, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

You better learn some German...

This study cannot be reached at all. If it comes to profit, the radioactive debris, needs to be stored, part of it some 1.000.000 years... Who is goning to pay for all this ? How can the costs even be calculated ? Are the present owners of the nuclear plant save enough money for this ? J.T.W.A.Cornelisse (talk) 11:56, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Coal power plants produce in greater quantities than nuclear power plants materials such as arsenic that are extremely toxic forever. How can they store it? How can they pay for it?? --Ita140188 (talk) 12:53, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

COI

The comment above from Ita140188 shows a clear pro-nuclear POV. That's not a problem according to WP:COI. Neither is it a problem for an expert to edit the article under their own name, as I am doing. WP:COI isn't a matter of you making your own judgements, it's a formal policy which does not support your interpretation.

On the substantive points at issue, there's no justification for including predictions made in the past which clearly haven't turned out correctly. There has been no acceleration in the Chinese nuclear program (only a handful of new starts have taken place), and costs have not fallen to the levels claimed in 2016, rather (as the Reuters 2019 reported indicates) they have risen.JQ (talk) 07:49, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Role of the product lifecycle prediction

Section "Safety, security and accidents" ends with the following sentences:

In 1986, Pete Planchon conducted a demonstration of the inherent safety of the Integral Fast Reactor. Safety interlocks were turned off. Coolant circulation was turned off. Core temperature rose from the usual 1000 degrees Fahrenheit to 1430 degrees within 20 seconds. ... Safety of the Integral Fast Reactor depends on the composition and geometry of the core, not efforts by operators or computer algorithms.

According to a diametrically opposite point of view:

During their operation, high stresses occur in thick-walled pressure elements. The operation cyclic character resulting from the cooling and heating of pressure elements causes the low-cycle fatigue phenomenon, which may lead to cracks. As power plants become older engineers need screening criteria to eliminate the risk of thermal fatigue. A number of programs have been launched to develop fatigue monitoring systems for the nuclear power plant components [2, 3]. The use of monitoring systems has a significant impact on the remnant life prediction, highlighting hot zones in the boiler and the influence of modified operations on safe extension of the plant life [4]. The control system quality depends on the accuracy of stress calculations in selected elements of the power unit.
— DOI 10.1155/2017/1812835 (CC licensed)

Nothing else is said on the role of life prediction of critical boiler's components in the mitigation of the risk of nuclear accidents and in a more efficient administraton of the nuclear power plants. Without expressing any evaluation of the proposed methodology, the related introduction can be cited in the WP article.Philosopher81sp (talk) 07:24, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

The first source is an industry source, not an unbiased academic source

Said it all in the title. Not to mention that the first few sentences definitely seem like opinions and not encyclopedic facts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.255.15 (talk) 17:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)