Graph of the Day: Nuclear prices itself out of market

By Giles Parkinson on 1 November 2013

The extent to which nuclear is being priced out of electricity markets has finally been revealed by the pricing mechanism unveiled by the British government in the deal to subsidise the Hinkley C nuclear.

The UK government will pay £92.5 for each megawatt hour produced from hinkley ($A154/MWh), around double the prevailing market price. This is after the UK supplied a loan guarantee for 65 per cent of the estimated $24 billion capital cost. The “strike price” – a fancy name for a feed in tariff – also has an escalator to take into account the impact of inflation, so the cost will rise in coming years.

So how does this compare with rival clean energy technologies? Pretty badly as it turns out.

This graph below, published by Craig Morris in Renewable Energy World reveals that the rates that will be offered for new nuclear from 2023 in the UK are far above what solar and wind currently cost. And, as Morris points out, the rates for solar and wind will go down by then, not up! Even offshore wind is getting £95/MWh from 2018 in the UK, but only for 15 years and without any loan guarantees.



This second graph below is even more interesting. It takes into account all the expensive PV that was installed with really high feed in tariffs at the start of Germany’s energy transition before the price of solar fell dramatically. From 2023, when the Hinkley reactor is due to be switched on, nuclear at this price still fairs poorly, and as the cost of those tariffs continue to decline, the cost of nuclear will continue to rise. It’s probably as good an illustration as any as to why Germany are not interested in new nuclear power station, and few countries are.

How hard is it to shut down nuclear plants if in future there was a transition to something (more) renewable and efficient? I imagine that's an issue?

Nuclear power economics was over taken by solar thermal efficiency costs in the year 2010.

In reality nuclear power is totally off the spectrum with respect to capital and power generation costs. As we may all know, no nuclear power plant in the world today (over 500 plants world wide) can be insured for public liability and compensation in the event of a nuclear disaster. No nuclear power plan has been built solely by the private sector or funded purely by stock market floats. They always receive state tax payer funding and guarantees.

And of course nobody talks about the costs for nuclear waste storage and/or treatment, plant decommissioning and site remediation costs.

Shhhhhhhhhhh......

muso wrote on Nov 1^st, 2013 at 9:10pm:



...and the more dangerous and lethal they become

...the more brittle their reactor pressure vessels and containments become due to neutron bombardment and other factors such as corrosion and fatigue...

the more waste they generate....

muso wrote on Nov 1^st, 2013 at 8:28pm:


Have you forgotten about Chernobyl.....???

Or Fukushima.

The very foundation of western civilisation is built on fossil fuels.........!!!!!

muso wrote on Nov 1^st, 2013 at 8:28pm:

Given developments in renewables and the surprising advances in storage, is that likely to be necessary - or even cost-effective? The Germans seem to have done pretty well, even with the current state of technology.

# wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2013 at 2:35pm:


Yes, and I guess Solar installations are not affected by jellyfish either.
http://news.sp@m/animals/jellyfish-shut-down-swedish-nuclear-reactor-131002.htm

Quote:


Jellyfish are becoming more of a hazard worldwide.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 1:56am:


The large scale Spanish solar thermal plant can store enough energy in its molten salt circuits that it can run 24/7 - effectively making it a base load power source.

The solar Hot Water systems on domestic and commercial rooftops often have a back up booster coil or gas burner, to cater for periods where the hot water has run out.

The Solar Hot water system installed on our roof has a gas booster on the main tank. Its been running for close to 5 years now and has never come on for more than 8% of the year. So greater than 92% of the energy used to heat the water comes directly from the sun. The whole system should pay itself off after about 6 or 7 years.

The large solar thermal plants are becoming very advanced in insulation technology and the type and composition of molten salts that they use. They are also now designing in extra storage capacity because the capital investment is worthwhile.

There is also the Solar Tower project proposed by Australian company Environmission -  different conceptual idea but nevertheless a 24/7 base load option (although the output does drop during the night to about 50 - 65%)

Animation
http://www.enviromission.com.au/irm/content/movies/towerfunction.html