Comparing nuclear and wind power, so far so good.

[His Divine Shadow]

could anyone help me in figuring out what amount of resources would go into building a nuclear power plant? I mean in tons of steel, plastic, concrete and such. I've just been doing some math comparing the new reactor in Finland to wind power.

What it came to was using these figures:

• Cost of one 1MW wind plant is 1,323,965 USD
• One 1MW wind turbine will generate about 2010MW per year
• Finlands new nuclear powerplant will cost 4,106,700,000 USD to build
• Olkiluoto 3 is a 1600Mwe reactor

Now from this I have concluded that if you'd invest as much money as we will into the fifth reactor in wind power plants you could build about 3110 1MW wind towers which would generate an average of 6.4TWh each year. The nuclear reactor can generate nearly 14TWh per year if running at near 100% but even so it should have no problems doing 10-12TWh while running at a lower capacity. In other words, nuclear powerplants are twice as effective.

But thats not all, I have a feeling that the material spent on building all the wind plants would also outweigh what is used for a nuclear power plant. I've got figures for the wind power(only for a 600Kw model) but none for nuclear power plants.

• 200 tons of concrete for the base
• 4,5 tons of iron
• 23,2 tons of steel for the tower
• 8,4 tons of glassfiber armored polyesterplastic for the rotor

(NUMBERS TAKEN FROM MFK.NU)

Going by this, a wind power farm equivalent in worth to Olkiluoto 3 would require:

• 622,000 tons of concrete
• 13,995 tons of iron
• 72,152 tons of steel
• 26,124 tons of plastic

I wonder how that compares to a nuclear powerplant?

[Patrick Degan]

Of course it isn't really a contest. Wind power will always be limited by geography and weather. Same for solar power as well. Given those two factors, neither is a serious competitor against nuclear.

[His Divine Shadow]

True but just saying that isn't as devastating to the anti-nuclear peoples arguments. Isn't it so much sweeter to crush your enemies and hear the lamentation of their women?

[LaCroix]

Ähm.. where are the fuel costs (mining, enrichement, transport and deposition) of the nuclear fuel in this milk-maiden calculation on cost effectivity? And the manpower has to be paid, too.

A windpowerplant is not dependent on fuel or manpower, so you build it, it produces, the reactor does plain squat if not supplied with fuel, and you surely don't want to have the sucker running without some babysitters and the guys to work in the plant.

Also, dismantling a reactor after it's lifetime costs the same as the building process, (like with the wind tower)

Btw, some info after googeling german web:

Some older german reactors have total masses in the range of 400.000 tons.

[His Divine Shadow]

Ähm.. where are the fuel costs (mining, enrichement, transport and deposition) of the nuclear fuel in this milk-maiden calculation on cost effectivity? And the manpower has to be paid, too.

The first fuel load is factored in the cost which by default includes the costs of it being mined and processed. Transport, decomissioning and final deposition are also included in the price of the electricity sold by the plant. It doesn't really affect my initial calculation by much.

Here's a diagram showing what the electricity price is and how much each thing costs:
http://www.euronuclear.org/e-news/image ... ki-3-2.gif

A windpowerplant is not dependent on fuel or manpower, so you build it, it produces, the reactor does plain squat if not supplied with fuel, and you surely don't want to have the sucker running without some babysitters and the guys to work in the plant.

Wind power needs maintenance just like anything else.

Also, dismantling a reactor after it's lifetime costs the same as the building process, (like with the wind tower)

I would like you to prove that with numbers. It's irrelevant at any rate since the price of all this is included in the electricity being sold and nuclear is still cheaper by about the same factor as I showed.

[LaCroix]

The first fuel load is factored in the cost which by default includes the costs of it being mined and processed. Transport, decomissioning and final deposition are also included in the price of the electricity sold by the plant. It doesn't really affect my initial calculation by much.

Here's a diagram showing what the electricity price is and how much each thing costs:
http://www.euronuclear.org/e-news/image ... ki-3-2.gif

I did not know about it, I fugured that this would only be the building price tag.

That nuclear power is much cheaper than any other is undisputed.

Wind power needs maintenance just like anything else.

Yes, but not as much as an reactor.

I would like you to prove that with numbers. It's irrelevant at any rate since the price of all this is included in the electricity being sold and nuclear is still cheaper by about the same factor as I showed.

I must partly concede this statement, I rechecked briefly in google, and they had (in 1988) an reactor in Mülheim-Kärlich, Germany which was built for 3,6 billion DM, and after 13 months had to be dismantled for 500 million DM, so it is rather one sixth in that case, and I don't have time and the will to search any further.

just to clarify, I am not anti-nuclear, I just thought that the fuel cost was not included in this calculation, and dependent on the price of fuel, the cost-efficiently will shift towards windpower, since it doesn't need fuel.

But as a matter of fact, initially, the windpower will cost twice the nuclear power.

[His Divine Shadow]

just to clarify, I am not anti-nuclear, I just thought that the fuel cost was not included in this calculation, and dependent on the price of fuel, the cost-efficiently will shift towards windpower, since it doesn't need fuel.

The diagram I showed indicates fuelprices for nuclear powerplants must double in price nine times over before being slightly more expensive than wind.

[PrinceofLowLight]

The amount of land you need to buy is also a big issue. Four hundred square miles of wind farm would generate 700MW (that's for New York State, winds in Finland may be better/worse) , as opposed to the 4 or so GW from a nuclear plant taking a fraction of that space.

[CmdrWilkens]

The amount of land you need to buy is also a big issue. Four hundred square miles of wind farm would generate 700MW (that's for New York State, winds in Finland may be better/worse) , as opposed to the 4 or so GW from a nuclear plant taking a fraction of that space.

Yes but the amount of land should probably be included in the basic startup costs (since the land itself is on the order of the same expense as actually filling out the permits and plans required to build the damn thing).

[His Divine Shadow]

I don't think land cost was included in the cost of the windturbine I used...

[Mr Bean]

I don't think land cost was included in the cost of the windturbine I used...

No, and that triples, or even increase the cost by full magnitudes. Nevermind the complete death on all local bird populations in the area of massive wind farms due to the giant spinning blades of doom.

Heck the've had to shut some down because they were mincing up protected birds before.


But back to the land cost, building the things costs, but the land might cost more, esp since areas with alot of wind tend to be near the beach which is always high cost land.

[His Divine Shadow]

Another factor that can really increase efficiency is using nuclear power for district heating, or teleheating as it's also called. This is done in swtizerland in one place.

[Broomstick]

Of course it isn't really a contest. Wind power will always be limited by geography and weather. Same for solar power as well. Given those two factors, neither is a serious competitor against nuclear.

Not on a massive scale, no, but I'm entirely in favor of exploiting those energy sources where and when it makes sense.

At present, though, I the only large-scale viable alternative to petroleum I see that can maintain the energy needs of our current civilization is nuclear.

[His Divine Shadow]

What I noticed now is that the increase of uranium prices I mentioned is that Prof. Bernard Cohen estimated maybe a quadruple increase in fuel cost if we extracted uranium from seawater. A metod that would allow us to extract uranium for 5 billion years.

[His Divine Shadow]

To make it clearer, that would still make nuclear cheaper than wind power if his calculations are on the money.

[Patrick Degan]

What I noticed now is that the increase of uranium prices I mentioned is that Prof. Bernard Cohen estimated maybe a quadruple increase in fuel cost if we extracted uranium from seawater. A metod that would allow us to extract uranium for 5 billion years.

Even better: a new fuel reprocessing technique called pyroprocessing would allow for far more efficent recycling of spent fuel and even present waste materials to allow for up to 95% usable yield and indefinite extention of present uranium supplies —to the point where uranium mining itself could be allowed to lapse for centuries at a stretch. The technique was touched upon as part of an article on nuclear power in the December 2005 issue of Scientific American.

[Darth Wong]

The true cost of nuclear power plants has never been the cost of actually building them. It's the cost of meeting incredibly strict regulations and red-tape requirements. That cost cannot be underestimated; it is an enormous factor in the operating and construction and commissioning costs of nuclear power plants and is a major contributor to their lost economic viability in North America.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

People tend to think that wind power doesn't require much maintenance. I live so close to the largest wind farm in Northern California that I can see the windmills from my front porch, and I can tell you that about one-third to one-half of the windmills are locked in place for maintenance at any given time.

[Master of Ossus]

People tend to think that wind power doesn't require much maintenance. I live so close to the largest wind farm in Northern California that I can see the windmills from my front porch, and I can tell you that about one-third to one-half of the windmills are locked in place for maintenance at any given time.

The wind farms also have an effective life of only 20-25 years. A modern nuclear reactor will continue to be productive for much longer, given proper maintenance and upgrades.

[His Divine Shadow]

What I noticed now is that the increase of uranium prices I mentioned is that Prof. Bernard Cohen estimated maybe a quadruple increase in fuel cost if we extracted uranium from seawater. A metod that would allow us to extract uranium for 5 billion years.

Even better: a new fuel reprocessing technique called pyroprocessing would allow for far more efficent recycling of spent fuel and even present waste materials to allow for up to 95% usable yield and indefinite extention of present uranium supplies —to the point where uranium mining itself could be allowed to lapse for centuries at a stretch. The technique was touched upon as part of an article on nuclear power in the December 2005 issue of Scientific American.

Could anyone point me to a good source for this? If I had a good source I could use this argument in the debate pages on the local paper.

[Count Dooku]

Bah, wait a century or so, and we'll have fully operational fusion generators...hopefully.

[Vendetta]

Until then, though, we need some electricity.

I would say the best way to proceed would be nuclear + microgeneration. For example, I live right next to a bunch of 15 odd storey tower blocks (those hideous grey bastards). Stick a few wind turbines on the tops of those, and they could supplement power for their building quite nicely, and even sell some back to the grid, since they will still generate at night.

Some supermarkets here are already doing this, powering or part-powering the building from turbines on the roof or up on their signs.

Wind power and solar power can't econimically be used by themselves, but they can be used in conjunction with other sources, and local generation would be the ideal way forward.

[drachefly]

Divine, the top google hit on 'pyroprocessing' is a government web site. If they're trustable enough, use that.

[Alan Bolte]

Pyroprocessing itself is not at all new, but the way it is integrated into this fast-neutron reactor design is.

Looking through that website, they don't anticipate the technology to be useable at full scale until at least 2030, but once it's ready it will produce nearly 100 times the power and as little as a hundredth of the waste compared to current US reactors, with no conceivable danger to the public should anything go wrong, even deliberately doing things exactly the wrong way. At no point in the process is weapons-grade plutonium produced, and what plutonium is produced is both difficult to access and need never leave the site. Also, the waste that is produced need only be stored for hundreds of years, instead of more than ten thousand. However, I haven't been able to find any info on how this design would compare to current designs cost-wise.

[Sea Skimmer]

Another factor that can really increase efficiency is using nuclear power for district heating, or teleheating as it's also called. This is done in swtizerland in one place.

Some Russian cities (usually secrete ones built specifically for weapons development) are also heated that way; but its only really practical if you build the city with that in mind.

I suspect the maintaince costs for wind turbines are rather lower then for a nuclear plant though. But how dispersed the wind turbines are would be a big factor since people have to drive out to each and every one to do anything. The nuclear plant is one nice compact location.