*spin-off* Power issues and... New Zealand.

[zed]

Why is it so damn expensive there? Regulations? I remember our discussions in another thread where the vast hydro storage resources in NZ make wind a lot cheaper and less dependent on backup power than elsewhere, but I don't see why the nuclear cost should be inflated.

the costs would be similar to other counties (though perhaps incur some extra infrastructure since theres no nuclear power at present)

the thing is in NZ the government gives NO subsidies for power generation, theres nothing for wind power etc.

heres what a government minister saiz

Firstly, from a cost standpoint, nuclear plants produce power about twice as expensively as the plants that have been built in New Zealand recently. In our market system, I don’t believe that any generation company is going to step forward and build a nuclear plant.

i.e. it just doesnt make economic sense

In other countries nuclear power is often subsidized, why is that?
From new scientist magazine

Can nuclear power ever pay its way?: Postwar pioneers were convinced they could generate electricity cheaply. But nearly 40 years later, nuclear power is still struggling to survive without subsidies

Im not sure where you get this idea that nuclear energy is cheap energy have a quick google for recent energy cost comparisons

btw in the cricket today
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/cricket/3485389/McCullum-lifts-Black-Caps-off-the-canvas

Wellington's Basin Reserve was buffeted by 130kmh-plus gales.

true windier than most days but 100+ km/hr in town is reasonable common, on the exposed hills around the area expect even higher speeds!

a doubling of a winds speed == 8x the energy generated

$26B cost killed nuclear bid
Ontario ditched plan over high price tag that would wipe out 20-year budget

http://www.thestar.com/comment/columnists/article/665644

heres the newest nuclear plant in europe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant

"the plant is at least three and a half years behind schedule and more than 50 percent over-budget."[9][10][11] According to Professor Stephen Thomas, "Olkiluoto has become an example of all that can go wrong in economic terms with new reactors".[9] Areva and the utility involved "are in bitter dispute over who will bear the cost overruns and there is a real risk now that the utility will default"

nuclear like with other "major" constructions seems to often have cost overruns, like I say its easier to build lots of small things than it is to build just one big thing

 

[hoom]

BTW, this is a pretty cool site for checking out NZ generation
http://www.em6live.co.nz/Default.aspx

Geothermal has had a nice bump recently, with a new 125MW plant online this year, 100MW a couple of years back & another several either in build or in advanced planning.
100MW of Geothermal is more useful than it sounds on the face of it since NZ demand is relatively low & its near zero emission, 24/7 baseload.

 

[nintenho]

nuclear power would be more expensive then fossil fuels but isn't it still the cheapest "carbon neutral" power production? On windfarms, you also have the problem that each individual wind mill only supplies power for about 1/3 of the time meaning you'd need to build three times the capacity that you'd need.

 

[zed]

nuclear power would be more expensive then fossil fuels but isn't it still the cheapest "carbon neutral" power production? On windfarms, you also have the problem that each individual wind mill only supplies power for about 1/3 of the time meaning you'd need to build three times the capacity that you'd need.

in nz, wind warms generate power ~90% of the time and operate at maximum capacity ~40% of the time

take the first wind farm in the SI of NZ
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Hill_Wind_Farm
cost $100million NZ to build, started generating electricty within 8months (nuclear stations typically take years before they go online)
it generated ~230Gwh last year 230,000 * ~$100kw/hr = $23million
and the thing is its not even in a windy place of nz

 

[nintenho]

It sounds like NZ has unique conditions then. Not very comparable to other regions that subsidize nuclear power I would guess.

 

[Squilliam]

We're one of the few countries producing wind power cheaply.

 

[zed]

but paying too much for it!

Not only that, since the industry became a group of private companies operating against each other, power supply is less reliable(*). Thus we're now paying more and getting worse service. Oh the joys of deregularization

(*)heres how this occurs

company A - hydro storage
company B - gas supply

scenario A - lotsa water in the lakes (price of elec is low)
A produces as much elec as possible (to much water it just gets dumped without producing elec), B thinks well thats money we're missing out on, having the gas sitting in the ground aint helping the profits
scenario B - bugger all water in the lakes (price of elec is high)
A price is high, lets use our hydro water now + maximize profits + prey for rain. no rain after a couple of months. everybody we've gotta start saving power

contrast this with a system where a single company controls how elec is produced

 

[hoom]

Its worse, the sector is 4/5 owned by the Government but split into commercial companies wasting money on executives & marketing to churn around the same bunch of customers between each other.

Scenario went like this:

• Lots of water in the lakes at start of summer (electricity price low) -> dump water
• Less water in the lakes (electricity price rises) -> dump more
• Minister makes public statement that he's concerned about the level of dumping -> say "we've got a management system, it'll be fine" keep dumping
• Regulator puts out warning that there is a possibility of water shortage over winter (price goes high) -> blame unseasonal weather, keep dumping
• Regulator announces official water shortage, starts public savings campaign (prices skyrocket) -> say "oh my golly, who'd have thought?", make lots of money
• Rain eventually comes, emergency over -> prices don't drop to previous levels
• Official report blames weather, has one line suggesting more care with water management -> do it again a couple of years later
• New government comes in (same jerks who split the monopoly) & say they're going to reform -> submit that prices are still way too low & what little regulation there is was the problem, reduce regulation = reduced prices
• Government announces minor reform that can't possibly fix the fundamental problem -> say its going to cause prices to rise

 

[Squilliam]

Ok, ok I get it you know more about this than me!

 

[hoom]

According to National Radio today prices went up 70% from 2000 to 2008.
'Only' 2% the last year & the power companies are bitching about it.
Contact (the biggest private owned generator) wants to go up 5% per annum indefinitely 'in order to fund building future generation'

 

[Mintmaster]

Im not sure where you get this idea that nuclear energy is cheap energy have a quick google for recent energy cost comparisons

I have googled it, and it is pretty cheap.

http://www.thestar.com/comment/columnists/article/665644

I'm from Toronto, so I'm pretty familiar with that. They're including a lot of stuff in that figure, including loan guarantees for risk sharing. Even if there's a 5% chance of requiring more loans to complete some aspect of the plant, the full price of that goes into the bid because the companies won't build a plant without the guarantee.

You should also know that Ontario has been paying obscene amounts for wind and solar for years, and still only gets 1% of its energy from it:
http://fit.powerauthority.on.ca/Storage/97/10759_FIT-Program-Overview_v1.1.pdf
It will guarantee 13c/kWh (plus escalation) for 20 years of wind, and 44c/kWh for solar. To put even the wind figure in perspective, to generate as much electricity by wind as that nuclear plant would, it would cost $50B, and that doesn't even take into account all the issues with the grid, energy storage, the fact that more wind electricity is produced in the winter but peak consumption is in the summer, etc.

That last point is particularly important: When surplus capacity is available, nuclear plants sell electricity for a penny per kWh because there's no point in ramping it down. These contracts, though, make Ontario pay over 10x as much, and without that subsidy, nobody would build wind here. Then in the summer the wind plants are running at 10% of capacity while Ontario is paying through the roof to import the rest.

heres the newest nuclear plant in europe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant

It's still not nearly as bad as hoom exaggerated it. In 40 years Olkiluto would generate 500B kWh of electricity. A gov't subsidy of 10c/kWh is way more than the $3B current cost overrun.

nuclear like with other "major" constructions seems to often have cost overruns, like I say its easier to build lots of small things than it is to build just one big thing

This is just qualitative handwaving. When it comes down to real numbers, real demand curves, real peaking/storage costs, etc. that just isn't the case.

 

[zed]

According to National Radio today prices went up 70% from 2000 to 2008.
'Only' 2% the last year & the power companies are bitching about it.
Contact (the biggest private owned generator) wants to go up 5% per annum indefinitely 'in order to fund building future generation'

(didnt realize you were a kiwi I thought you were in germany for some reason) yes I heard that guy from trustpower on national radio today bitching 'selling for under cost'
my question to him is "if thats the case how come they're still make large profits"

http://fit.powerauthority.on.ca/Stor...rview_v1.1.pdf

no mention of nuclear in that report

I have googled it, and it is pretty cheap.

show links to 'independant' i.e. non nuclear industry funded studies.
when was the last nuclear power station in the US built?
30+ years ago
Q/ So in that time withpresidents ronnie raygun, the bushes why have there been no new stations built?
A/ not cost effective

This is just qualitative handwaving. When it comes down to real numbers, real demand curves, real peaking/storage costs, etc. that just isn't the case.

Aye!!
are you saying that its just as easy to build one huge complicated thing as it is to build lots of small easy things?
If so then why do these 'major' projects so often go over budget + time?

heres the new canadian nuclear station (thats been scrapped)

AECL’s $26 billion bid was based on the construction of two 1,200-megawatt Advanced Candu Reactors, working out to $10,800 per kilowatt of power capacity.

WRT price comparison this is canadian dollars
OK the above wind farm in southland is $1724NZ ($1236can) but of course its only generating at maximum 40% of the time, so /0.4 ==
wind here in nz, $3090, nuclear in canada $10,800 (ignoring decommissioning,fuel,security etc)

Now if only we could transport power we could become a power exporter, let alone some of those south sea islands where it blows non stop, the falklanders would become millionares!

 

[zed]

WRT the cost overruns with nuclear plants, here is some damming material (handwaving indeed )

from 1966->1977 in the US there were 75 nuclear power stations built
every single one ran over budget from 2x->4x the initial cost, ouch!

(didnt realize you were a kiwi I thought you were in germany for some reason) yes I heard that guy from trustpower on national radio today bitching 'selling for under cost'
my question to him is "if thats the case how come they're still make large profits"

thinking about this some more his assertion is complete nonsense, the majority of this 'under cost' power is generated from dams that were paid off completely long ago, thus the only costs they occur now are maintenance and salaries of a few guys sitting in the control booths.(*)
the only way they can sell under cost is by charging next to nothing for it 0.0001c a KW/hr or something

(*)hydro and wind etc are sometimes called 'near free' energy

 

[Gubbi]

(*)hydro and wind etc are sometimes called 'near free' energy

The energy is free, but the facilities aren't. Wind power has almost the same cost structure as nuclear with 80% spent up front on turbines and grid facilities and 20% spent the next 20 years on maintenance.

The problem for wind energy, both from an economic and energy supply reliability POV, is that supply is completely decoupled from demand.

Cheers

 

[Mintmaster]

no mention of nuclear in that report

It's not a report. It describes how much Ontario will pay people to produce renewable power. Nuclear isn't in there because it doesn't get any such guarantees.

Q/ So in that time withpresidents ronnie raygun, the bushes why have there been no new stations built?
A/ not cost effective

Not compared to coal when putting a premium on risk (beyond expected value of the construction cost). But it absolutely is way more cost effective than wind and solar.

Aye!!
are you saying that its just as easy to build one huge complicated thing as it is to build lots of small easy things?
If so then why do these 'major' projects so often go over budget + time?

I never said that they don't go over budget. I said that when you consider these things, they still come in way below the cost of wind or solar.

Coal and nuclear operators don't get 15c/kWh guaranteed. They get free market value, probably averaging 4c/kWh. Even if you think there's $5B of subsidy for every GW spread throughout for construction, repairs, decomission, etc, over 40 years that works out to under 2c/kWh.

heres the new canadian nuclear station (thats been scrapped)

I just went through that with you. It's not the plant that costs that much. It's the various risk factors priced into the bid to make it compliant. If there is a 5% chance of needing a $1B cost overrun, it adds $1B to the bid, not $50M. The gov't says if it doesn't work, you get nothing. AREVA or AECL says okay, then we need some loan guarantees to make sure that the worst case is covered. The gov't says fine, put those into the bid.

With wind, the gov't doesn't charge wind operators for the peaking plants or energy storage necessary to make the wind energy useful, and it takes all the risk of free market price fluctuation. It doesn't charge them for making their coal and natural gas generation more expensive by reducing their capacity factors when giving priority to wind energy.

OK the above wind farm in southland is $1724NZ ($1236can) but of course its only generating at maximum 40% of the time, so /0.4 ==
wind here in nz, $3090, nuclear in canada $10,800 (ignoring decommissioning,fuel,security etc)

Again, you have a hidden subsidy of hydro storage to make that real capacity. Anywhere else, and you need to build the same amount of natural gas plants (which is pretty costly per kWh) to fill the gaps, and then you're producing CO2 for around 50% of the energy you make as well, which makes it an apples to oranges comparison because nuclear+coal+gas would also be cheaper than nuclear alone. If you had a real free market, the cost of electricity would go down when wind was producing power, and would go way up when it wasn't and hydro storage filled the gaps. This disparity would get worse with growing wind capacity.

That $10,800 figure includes decommissioning, waste, plus the risk premiums I mentioned above which are likely to not even be touched. The plant cost is less than a third of that.

 

[zed]

The energy is free, but the facilities aren't. Wind power has almost the same cost structure as nuclear with 80% spent up front on turbines and grid facilities and 20% spent the next 20 years on maintenance.

I disagree, sure with wind u have maintenance and salaries but with nuclear you have fuel,maintenance,security,decommissioning,nuclear waste disposal i.e. a lot more things

The problem for wind energy, both from an economic and energy supply reliability POV, is that supply is completely decoupled from demand.

I agree

btw just looked at the energy monitoring site hoom mentioned above

seems like wind ATM is operating ~85-90% peak capacity, higher than any other energy gen method.
Yes I agree u cant turn wind on/off but here in nz its pretty reliable.
If we had 10x the wind farms coal,gas,cogen would not be needed at all. (hydro/geothermal can take over when wind is not outputing significantly, the 10% of the year when this occurs)
10x the number of wind farm output will cost LESS than a single nuclear station

But it absolutely is way more cost effective than wind

Im still waiting to see this data from a non biased source

I heard the other day on the radio ppl were working on a battery that stores power with next to no degradation, Imagine an oil taker sized sbattery ship (I dont know if this is feasible, or safe) perhaps beam it from space? If they can get this out then perhaps nz + other suitable countries could start exporting power

On the topic of subsidies, ATM in the news nz is in discussion with the US about farm subsidies (like power) nz does not subsidize any farm products, yet the US/europe does. What are u the US/european tax payer going to do about this 'welfare'

 

[zed]

since you have been unwilling or unable to show any data Ive taken the liberty

Just one of the many many sources
here is info from
http://www.ferc.gov/

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is the United States federal agency with jurisdiction over interstate electricity sales, wholesale electric rates, hydroelectric licensing, natural gas pricing, and oil pipeline rates. FERC also reviews and authorizes liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals, interstate natural gas pipelines and non-federal hydropower projects.

Well they should a thing or two right?

ouch, yes seems a quite a change in the 5 years but it does show what is the most expensive power source, Mintmaster why are you even arguing this (you havent been posting to much in xxx's threads that youre picking up his habits)

btw it seems as if power in nz aint as expensive as I thought compartively to other countries (though still to expensive due to most coming from cheap sources.

 

[Squilliam]

The energy is free, but the facilities aren't. Wind power has almost the same cost structure as nuclear with 80% spent up front on turbines and grid facilities and 20% spent the next 20 years on maintenance.

The problem for wind energy, both from an economic and energy supply reliability POV, is that supply is completely decoupled from demand.

Cheers

Wind + Hydro which we have both in abundance synergise extremely well. When wind power is in excess simply pump water back up the hill and into the hydro dams. The hydro dams are in effect big batteries.

Also once you've spent the money upgrading the grid its spent. After all the power lines pylons and service roads are built and paid off over 20 years the 2nd generation turbines placed on the top of pre-existing turbines 20 years after installation and the overall cost will be extremely cheap once the fixed capital is paid off.

 

[Mintmaster]

ouch, yes seems a quite a change in the 5 years but it does show what is the most expensive power source, Mintmaster why are you even arguing this (you havent been posting to much in xxx's threads that youre picking up his habits)

AGAIN, that doesn't include the cost of energy storage, whether CAES or PHS, and doesn't divide by 0.3 for the capacity factor (which is generous in North America).

Of course, energy storage other than hydro is unproven right now, so lets build natural gas instead and do an apples to apples CO2 scenario using your numbers. We build 5GW of wind and 5GW of CCGT, giving us steady power and having 70% of energy coming from natural gas. So that's about $15B plus about 7c/kWh (70% gas, 30% wind running costs). To have the same emissions with nuclear, we build 3GW nuclear and 2GW coal (40% energy from coal) at a cost of about $25B plus maybe 2c/kWh.

Do the math. After 40 years, wind+CCGT costs $87B more. You can add interest to the $10B extra capital cost of the nuclear option, but it barely makes a difference.

BTW, solar is the most expensive after dividing by capacity factors. In Nevada, a recent 64MW CSP plant is hoping to produce 134 MWh/yr, which is 23%.

Im still waiting to see this data from a non biased source

I gave one to you for Ontario. For years we have been offering a 20 yr contract of 15c/kWh and still only get 1% of our energy to come from wind. So it's lowballing the cost of wind generation.

To recap: To get the same energy as a 1GW reactor, we have to pay $23B over 20 years to get someone to generate wind for us, and then we have to pay for a hydro storage facility capable of outputting 1GW and storing 3000 GWh (to carry winter surplus energy into the summer) in order to get the same baseload ability of nuclear.

That all-inclusive cost of $10B/GW for nuclear from the flawed report you quoted doesn't look so bad anymore.

 

[zed]

Mintmaster youve still living in this world of nuclear will turn out exactly how it saiz in the glossy prospectus, look at PROVEN nuclears track record, its notorious for having budget/time overruns.

OK heres a real world example
china notorious for not giving a monkeys what the populace thinks -

nuclear begun ~1984 - total current capacity GW 9.1
wind begun ~2005 ---- total current capacity GW 25.1!! WTF!!! + btw yes I know your next remark

Q/ If nuclear is so cheap why is china choosing in preference the more expensive option? (have they suddenly become tree hugging greenies)
Q/ why has wallstreet decided to not build any nuclear reactors in the US for 30 years, if its such a cheap method?