Nuclear power is now the most expensive form of generation, except for gas peaking plants’

Nuclear power is now the most expensive form of generation, except for gas peaking plants
The latest edition of the World Nuclear Industry Status Report indicates the stagnation of the sector continues. Just 2.4 GW of net new nuclear generation capacity came online last year, compared to 98 GW of solar. The world’s operational nuclear power capacity had declined by 2.1%, to 362 GW, at the end of June.
https://www.pv-magazine.com/2020/09/24/nuclear-power-is-now-the-most-expensive-form-of-generation-except-for-gas-peaking-plants/


Nuclear energy too slow, too expensive to save climate: report
The cost of generating solar power ranges from $36 to $44 per megawatt hour (MWh), the WNISR said, while onshore wind power comes in at $29–$56 per MWh. Nuclear energy costs between $112 and $189.
Over the past decade, the WNISR estimates levelized costs - which compare the total lifetime cost of building and running a plant to lifetime output - for utility-scale solar have dropped by 88% and for wind by 69%.
For nuclear, they have increased by 23%, it said.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-energy-nuclearpower-idUSKBN1W909J

Planetcare, if the government has made a decision on bringing in or building nuclear submarines here or abroad in the not so distant future, don't you think it would also be a matter of time before a nuclear reactor goes up as to accommodate such?
Besides when did the powers in change care about money when in reality they squander $billions for all the wrong reasons & to most the wrong places.
During the Premier Bracks era here in Vic, they put up a desalination plant estimated at the time to cost around 1.7 $billion only having to dish out well over $7 billion upon completion, whilst still paying for its upkeep & maintenance costs today & as for the NBN well that's another multibillion dollar matter altogether. What doesn't end up costing the tax payer more than what the government ever estimates it to be?
Besides, what are you worried about, for it will all come off the tax payers hides, under the guise of "Unprecedented Times"
The main thing here to consider, (& like you say) is that which ever way the powers in charge decide to go about investing towards climate change for the better, it must be in a form which is not only cost effective & safe, but sustainable & just as productive as that of fossil fuel use.

Kon

Kon61gold wrote:Planetcare, if the government has made a decision on bringing in or building nuclear submarines here or abroad in the not so distant future, don't you think it would also be a matter of time before a nuclear reactor goes up as to accommodate such?
Besides when did the powers in change care about money when in reality they squander $billions for all the wrong reasons & to most the wrong places.
During the Premier Bracks era here in Vic, they put up a desalination plant estimated at the time to cost around 1.7 $billion only having to dish out well over $7 billion upon completion, whilst still paying for its upkeep & maintenance costs today & as for the NBN well that's another multibillion dollar matter altogether. What doesn't end up costing the tax payer more than what the government ever estimates it to be?
Besides, what are you worried about, for it will all come off the tax payers hides, under the guise of "Unprecedented Times"
The main thing here to consider, (& like you say) is that which ever way the powers in charge decide to go about investing towards climate change for the better, it must be in a form which is not only cost effective & safe, but sustainable & just as productive as that of fossil fuel use.

Kon

"Planetcare, if the government has made a decision on bringing in or building nuclear submarines here or abroad in the not so distant future, don't you think it would also be a matter of time before a nuclear reactor goes up as to accommodate such?"

No, the subs wont be here until perhaps 2040 and the reactor technologies are different and we don't know  whether the subs will use  slightly enriched uranium  (UK subs) or  highly enriched weapons grade uranium in the US subs. The desalination plants is a wise  investment as we will need it sometime in the future as the climate gets  hotter and drier (rainfall in SE Australia  is declining) and droughts get longer.
Why would you want a nuclear power plant that costs 6-9  billion dollars  (and rising)for a typical 1100 MW plant and then produces  electricity more than 4x the cost per MW hour of solar or wind?
As well if the reactors use enriched  uranium  then we either have to import it or build  a  uranium enrichment plant which are not cheap!

Don't misunderstand me here planecare, I'm all in for the most cost effective, cheaper & safer way, but on most occasions, its not so much in what we the general public prefer to have installed & put in place, but more so what actually gets established & put in place. For on most occasions, its the ones with both the power & money, that end up having the final say, as to what gets done or established in place.
Either way we can only hope that what ever decision our government takes in way of & for the better of climate change, it all works out for the better of us all, including that of the climate.
Kon

Of course peaking plants are more expensive than base load and intermittent power generation. Base load = coal, intermittent = solar and wind.
The nature of peaking power stations eg gas and to a lesser degree nuclear is provide power to fill the gaps the others leave in meeting unpredictable demand.
Power stations suppling part time peaking power will of course have a higher per KWh cost due to the fact that the capital and overhead costs need to offset with a power output less than their full time capacity but they are still necessary to avoid blackouts.

Quote.......
Nuclear energy too slow, too expensive to save climate: report
The cost of generating solar power ranges from $36 to $44 per megawatt hour (MWh), the WNISR said, while onshore wind power comes in at $29–$56 per MWh. Nuclear energy costs between $112 and $189. ...............


$112 * 24hr * 365 Days * 1000 MW unit = $981,120,000 per year..... For a base load Station or nearly a billion dollars in sales per year.
Australia is in a good position to place a station in an isolated area and get the power source (Uranium). New technology and knowledge has improved safety on the old Nuclear Generators. I have worked in Power station operations 1966 till I retired and some of my work mates work and was involved in commissioning Nuclear Power station operations. My worries is if private enterprise built and ran them as they would try to get away with the minimum cost in construction and maintenance. On the other hand if Governments built and ran them, the cost would be a lot more. A lot of confusion is in the public arena with atomic knowledge.

Aust has had radiation emitted by man.

The atomic age reached Maralinga with a blinding flash. At 5pm on 27 September 1956, a 15-kilotonne atomic device was detonated at the site in the western plains of South Australia. The ensuing blast had as much explosive strength as the weapon which fell on Hiroshima 11 years earlier.

geof_junk wrote:
Australia is in a good position to place a station in an isolated area and get the power source (Uranium).
 

Nuclear power plants need water which probably means that they would have to be located on the coasts and close to transmission lines. I doubt that many people living on the east coast would be  happy to have a nuclear reactor as their neighbor!