Offshore wind for Mid-Atlantic will be twice as expensive as nuclear

[wtmusic]

and take twice as long to build.



"Offshore Wind vs Nuclear Energy for Mid-Atlantic

Trans-Elect and Atlantic Grid Development are the Atlantic Wind Connection, AWC, project developers.

When completed, the AWC will be able to carry as much as 7,000 MW of offshore wind energy to consumers along the US East Coast.

With a project plan that envisages construction extending from 2016 - 2026, the developers intend to build out the offshore transmission backbone in five phases at a total expected cost of $6.311 billion. The capital cost of the IWTs (Industrial Wind Turbines) would be 7,000 MW x $4.2 million/MW = $24.53 Billion, for a total of $35.7 billion."

http://theenergycollective.com/meredith-angwin/221331/shore-wind-versus-nuclear-guest-post-willem-post?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=The+Energy+Collective+%28all+posts%29

[peace13]

1. When we factor in clean up of oil and nuclear disasters...

....the costs drop dramatically. Clean energy, new jobs, unlimited supply. The cost up front looks high but the rewards are endless!

[wtmusic]

2. The problem is, it isn't clean.

It requires natural gas to back it up, and will for the forseeable future.

[FogerRox]

14. Nat gas is the back up to wind, looking at the price points a utility will choose the cheapest first

[wtmusic]

21. Which, by far, is natural gas

but it's more complicated than that. It has to be an energy source which is dispatchable on short notice, and natural gas is the only suitable candidate.

[leveymg]

3. Like it won't cost anything to cleanup and rebuild after the next nuclear disaster?

Whoever is calculating these numbers isn't capturing total costs, including incidentals, like meltdowns.

[wtmusic]

4. The chances of a 9.0 earthquake hitting Maryland are infinitesimal

Did you calculate those numbers?

[FBaggins]

5. They have no choice but to play those games.

Don't like that nuclear power is such a low emitter of carbon? No problem! Claim that since nuclear power increases the chance of terrorists getting a nuclear bomb, just assume that they get one and set it off in a major city. Then score the carbon emissions from the fire storm as nuclear power related.

Not happy when people complain about bird deaths with wind farms (a silly argument)? That's ok. There was a uranium mine some years back that accidentally spilled some diesel fuel and some birds were killed. Just extrapolate that as the average bird death rate at all uranium mines every year. Then add in deaths at another mine (copper I think) and extrapolate those out as well. Now nuclear power kills more birds than wind.

Just like Mangano with so many of his recent farces... if the real data doesn't make the point - just make up the data.

Having said all that... I think this estimate is a bit overblown. Yes, the per-MW price cited for offshore wind is lower than, say, Cape Wind is estimating... it's still higher than I would expect the average price to be over the next 13 years. Cost estimates vary wildly depending on your assumption for how rapidly the industry will progress (which will depend largely on government stimulus). The assumed capacity factor is probably optimistic (and they also seem to ignore transmission costs other than capital) - but overall I think the price is probably still high.

On the flip side, the estimate for nuclear look low. China may be building them for about $4Billion/GW... but the US would need a larger scale of production to get back down to that level. If offshore wind got the focus it deserves (but is unlikely to receive), I'd expect the raw contraction capital costs to be pretty close per MWh/year by 2025-2030.

Just as importantly, the author leaves of two critical comparisons:

1 - a MW that is produced consistently is worth more than a source that averages the same amount but can't be relied upon for any specific amount at any specific time.

2 - There's every reason to believe that the new nuclear plants will last 60+ years. We can argue whether the turbines at the wind farms will last 15/20/25 years... but that wind farm will need to be re-powered at least once or twice during the life of the nuclear plant.

[FogerRox]

12. LCOE for wind is 3.3 to 6.5 cents per Kwh, grid work 6 cents

offshore 5.9 cents per kwh for grid hookups

http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/electricity_generation.html

More recent on wind prices, but without grid hookup. In some cases under $25Mwh
http://www.ieawind.org/index_page_postings/WP2_task26.pdf

a MW that is produced consistently is worth more than a source that averages the same amount but can't be relied upon for any specific amount at any specific time.

But when the inconsistent mw is cheapest, it will get attention.

Cape Wind will never be built, they are "blowing" in the wind. Poor site design, bad neighbors, the site is already multi use. CW is not worth comparing to any other project, CW is whats wrong with wind proponents.

If the ACW can deliver at 9 cents & under, then we'll see a lot more of these projects. IF AWC drops in a UHVDC marine cable, that can handle 35 gigs thru 5 landfall points.

[FBaggins]

28. You're using the wrong stat and looking at the wrong line.

The article isn't talking about LCOE... just capital costs for construction. LCOE would include factors such as the one I mentioned (difference in lifetime).

Also... you appear to be looking at onshore wind costs when the article is comparing offshore wind to nuclear. The EIA site you link to actually lists the LCOE for offshore wind as 18.7-34.9 cents - with an average of 24.3

But when the inconsistent mw is cheapest, it will get attention.

Absolutely! Particularly where the grid is flexible enough (and the penetration low enough) that it can directly offset higher fuel costs. Even better would be cases where the pattern of variability fits the demand curve on peak demand days. So, for instance, solar PV in AZ/CA would be preferable up to a significant penetration level if the LCOE was at all close. It wouldn't make sense to target PV at a MW that you needed day in and day out, just as it wouldn't make sense to build a nuclear plant to cover just mid-day peak loads during a hot summer.

But the base statement still stands. Two equal LCOE prices are not equal in the real world if one is close to constant while the other is highly variable.

If the ACW can deliver at 9 cents & under

If ACW could deliver at 9cents and actually break even doing it... they wouldn't need to handle anti-wind claims of bird deaths. It would be pork.

[kristopher]

6. An earthquake isn't the only potential cause of a nuclear disaster.

The fact that you can't envision all the possible causes of a nuclear accident really goes to the heart of the issue since it is undeniable that a disaster of extreme magnitude is latent in every nuclear plant. We are simply not able to predict and prevent all the potential catastrophic failures of any complex system - it is therefore far more relevant to look at the consequences should such a failure occur.

When we compare wind with nuclear in this regard, only an idiot would opt for nuclear.

Now, about cost. This is a first bite a the apple, so to speak, for offshore wind energy in the United States. The cost comparison of a just out the gate technology with a mature technology is simply invalid.

Perhaps you simply don't comprehend the scale of the resource involved. The piece of nuclear industry propaganda you've offered uses 7GW as the benchmark for comparison.

The offshore region in question has a resource potential of 1,700 GigaWatts.

[FogerRox]

13. The most conservative estimate I've seen

looking at only the mid offshore area, IIRC 10-20 miles offshore that the ACW will be situated in, was 65gigs.

[kristopher]

17. Probably the most relevant figure is 330GW of delivered power

That accounts for current and near term technological capability and the expected capacity factor of the waters in the midAtlantic Bight in areas to a depth of 100m.

"...the MAB wind resource can produce 330 GW average electrical power, a resource exceeding the region’s current summed demand for 73 GW of electricity, 29 GW of light vehicle fuels (now gasoline), and 83 GW of building fuels (now distillate fuel oil and natural gas)."

-Large CO2 reductions via offshore wind power matched to inherent storage in energy end-uses
Kempton etal 2007

[FogerRox]

24. GE, is working on incorporating MRI type tech and composites

with the goal being a 15mw turbine. IIRC Vesta is doing similar R&D. This would be a big jump from the 4mw to 6mw models. And 45% is looking to be realistic capacity figure in the very near future.

DId you see my other comment on why the linked article in the OP is using made up LCOE numbers? 9 cents for nukes, 20 cents for wind....LOL

[leveymg]

7. No, but here's what the Max Planck Inst. concludes: disasters may occur once every 10 to 20 years

Chances of nuclear accident put higher

Published: May 22, 2012 at 4:34 PM

MAINZ, Germany, May 22 (UPI) -- Catastrophic nuclear accidents such as Chernobyl and Fukushima are more likely to happen than previously assumed, German researchers say.

Scientists at the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry in Mainz have calculated that given the operating hours of all civil nuclear reactors and the number of nuclear meltdowns that have occurred to date, such disasters may occur once every 10 to 20 years.

That figure is based on the number of reactors operational in the world, currently 440, and is 200 times higher than previous estimates, an institute release said Tuesday.

In the event of such a major accident, the researchers said, radioactive material would be spread over an area of more than 600 miles away from the nuclear reactor.

"After Fukushima, the prospect of such an incident occurring again came into question, and whether we can actually calculate the radioactive fallout using our atmospheric models," Jos Lelieveld, institute director, said.

If a single nuclear meltdown were to occur in Western Europe around 28 million people on average would be affected by radioactive contamination, the researchers said, while in southern Asia, due to the dense populations, a major nuclear accident there would affect around 34 million people.

In the eastern United States and in East Asia this figure would be 14 to 21 million people, they said.

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2012/05/22/Chances-of-nuclear-accident-put-higher/UPI-48821337718882/#ixzz2SivJqmcg

[wtmusic]

8. The study assumes no safety improvements since Chernobyl or Fukushima

which is ridiculous assumption on which to base policy.

Yes, if we had 440 unshielded graphic cores like Chernobyl, we probably would have more problems.

[leveymg]

9. I suppose you're a better statistician? ROFL

[wtmusic]

10. What an amazingly stupid reply.

Why don't you read the study then take a stab at an informed one?

[leveymg]

11. Ad hominem much? The burden is on you to refute that with something other than an insult.

Here's the study page: http://www.mpg.de/5809418/reactor_accidents What do you have to share with us?

Yes, it's a simple extrapolation from historical data. But, you have to show that safety improvements are at least 200 times greater to cancel out these results. Go ahead, make my day.

[wtmusic]

19. No, the first burden is on you to get a dictionary and look up ad hominem

and then you have to show why your demands are 200 times less ignorant than they appear at first glance.

Go ahead, make my day.

[leveymg]

23. That's yet another ad hominem response, and again insulting. You still haven't addressed the issue.

Last edited Thu May 9, 2013, 12:45 PM - Edit history (2)

Why persist in insulting others? Are you insecure? You pretend that: 1) you are uniquely smart; and 2), better educated than DU Members who challenge your nonsense; yet 3), you demonstrate you are neither by dismissing a juried, published study ( http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/12/4245/2012/acp-12-4245-2012.html ) without so much as presenting any persuasive evidence or citing studies to the contrary, except your own opinion that it contains a "ridiculous assumption" that the probability of accidents -- along with their projected costs -- increases with further accidents. Insurance actuaries worldwide would surely disagree with you on that.

By the way, 4) the authors' assumption is based not on the unshielded graphite Chernobyl reactor, alone, but the failure of the conventional GE Fukushima reactor, 23 of which are still in service in the US. Did you read the study?

If you're trying to "educate" others on nuclear issues here, you're failing for at least the 4 reasons stated above. At least. I think you're just lashing out of your own feelings of insecurity.

[FBaggins]

29. With respect... yours is no better.

It comes across as disingenuous to essentially call someone stupid and then whine about ad-hominem attacks when he says that someone else hasn't put much thought into their analysis.

It's laughable to call that claim an "analysis" or "study". The foundational assumption behind their figure is that a reactor is a reactor is a reactor. Of course that's nonsense. It's a silly as giving everyone the same car insurance rates because driving record is irrelevant and a car is a car (and an accident is an accident). Just take the total number of car-years and divide by the number of accidents... and you're done.

Pretending that someone needs to be a statistician to point out how simplistic that "analysis" is as a false appeal to a non-existent authority.

[leveymg]

34. Your opinion isn't neutral, either, on this topic.

High-risk drivers get elevated insurance rates even if they switch to a Volvo from a Ferrari. The foundational assumption used in this study is the same as actuarial one in the insurance industry. It's not "silly" - you also are using buzz words to attack the conclusion instead of making a reasoned argument to refute it.

The burden here is to show that there's some basis to conclude a commensurate rise in safety margins to negate the conclusion drawn by the study cited that risk assumptions need to be revised upward after Fukushima. I see no countervailing evidence being presented.

There is no "false appeal to a non-existent authority" in my argument. The peer-reviewed article I cite is an authority. I am pointing out the lack of authority in the opposing argument.

My apologies if someone took my original comment as an intimation of stupidity to the other poster. I was responding in kind to the brusque and dismissive way that that poster responded to the Max Planck study. Wtmusic seems to imply the Planck study was incompetently constructed, rather than addressing the issue raised about how revised risk assumptions impact the validity of the comparative cost projection cited in the OP.

There will be no advance in our understanding of this issue here if the other side refuses to engage and respond to the point, rather than attacking the person who raised the issue and dismissing the study cited as incompetent out of hand.

[FBaggins]

36. I haven't claimed to be

but I did give points for both sides and (like the author I think) I support both offshore wind and nuclear power.

High-risk drivers get elevated insurance rates even if they switch to a Volvo from a Ferrari.

But not the same rate.

The foundational assumption used in this study is the same as actuarial one in the insurance industry

It most certainly is not. You don't need an actuarian if all you're going to do is add up the number of accidents and divide it into the number of vehicle-years.

attack the conclusion instead of making a reasoned argument to refute it.

Nope. The reasonable argument is that there isn't anything to support it. ("It" in this case being not the focus of the article, but the off-hand 10-20 year statement that has been taken incorrectly to be the result of actual science)

The peer-reviewed article I cite is an authority.

Hardly. And certainly not on this subject. The focus of their work was on the impact of a meltdown (already largely dis-proven by Fukushima)... it wasn't on the likelihood. They admit that they're just shooting from the hip.

It seems to imply the study was incompetently constructed,

The portion that I took him to be replying to (the notion that they had calculated a statistical likelihood of future meltdowns) would have been incompetently constructed... if they were claiming to have actually demonstrated such a likelihood. That isn't what they claim.

Let me put it this way. If there's a 1-in-10,000 chance of something happening in a given year... that doesn't mean that it can't happen two years in a row. The folks at Max Plank know this... and they know that it would be wildly irresponsible to then come forward and say that it tends to happen once a year instead. They very carefully didn't say that. But IMO it was irresponsible to even say what they did, because no reporter would read it as anything else.

Putting it yet another way... I'm sure that you'll agree that if I were to claim that the chance of an INES 7 accident occurring in the US was zero... because we have thousands of reactor-years under our belts now and there has never been one. I could word it in a way that it would get past peer review in an article that didn't hinge on that... but you would surely recognize it as a faulty construction. No? Instead of saying "it can't happen here", it would be correct to say that it hasn't happened here and show key differences between cases where it has happened and what factors are different vs. US reactors.

[FogerRox]

16. Link in the OP maintains nuclear is 10 cents per kwh and wind is 20 cents. EIA has different numbers

wind is 9, nukes are 11. With grid hookup.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

And Willhem thinks 7 new nukes can be built for 28 billion....4 billion each? No way. 10 to 12 billion, yeah Okay I would accept that estimate.

[wtmusic]

20. Oops, I was wrong.

Offshore wind is more than twice as expensive

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm

U.S. average levelized costs (2011 $/megawatthour) for plants entering service in 2018

Advanced Nuclear 108.4

Wind-Offshore 221.5

My bad.

[FogerRox]

25. Yet the NREL & IEA comes up with some very different numbers here

http://www.ieawind.org/index_page_postings/WP2_task26.pdf

[wtmusic]

27. Of course. Without renewables, they don't have a job.

I'm sure Greenpeace, which relies on antinuke paranoia for donations, comes up with an even more absurd number.

onedit: read the fine print - "excluding incentives". Any analysis which excludes incentives has its finger on the scale and is not truly levelized.

[FBaggins]

30. No they didn't.

That report doesn't come up with numbers for offshore wind at all.

[FogerRox]

39. 2.5 cents is very different from 8 or 9.

[FBaggins]

41. ???

Which figures are you looking at?

Their value for offshore wind is much higher.

[FogerRox]

42. Right no offshore wind numbers. Generic Wind W/o grid connection,

My mistake, not 2.5 cents, 3.3 cents. Page 125 & 121 here http://www.ieawind.org/index_page_postings/WP2_task26.pdf


While this says 7 w/o grid connection, 8.6 with grid connection.


http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm

SO generic wind in one report is 3.3 cents to 6.5 w/o grid connection., in another report its 7, w/o grid connection.

For 2012 the EIA uses 151.23 generation and 55.78 as capacity (gigwatts) about 36% which is representative of capacity in turbines prior to 2008. See Renewable Energy Generating Capacity and Generation, use the subject filter: Electric Power
http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/tablebrowser/#release=AEO2013ER&subject=6-AEO2013ER&table=16-AEO2013ER®ion=0-0&cases=full2012-d020112c,early2013-d102312a

NREL/EIA report uses higher capacity figures based on current turbine models. 40%+ and breaks down between tower size and low or high speed wind, see page 121 www.ieawind.org/index_page_postings/WP2_task26.pdfhttp://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/tablebrowser/#release=AEO2013ER&subject=6-AEO2013ER&table=16-AEO2013ER®ion=0-0&cases=full2012-d020112c,early2013-d102312a

100 meter tower, high speed class 3 resource= 3.3 cents per kwh

If an organization is going to report on new construction, they cant use older data. Some reports are coming in that new turbines are seeing a 40% to 45% capacity factor, although preliminary, the trend is for better CF's.

Direct drive on 100m towers were not seen much just a few years ago, tech has driven low speed wind turbines to better LCOE in spite of increased capital costs, output is much better. Direct drive reduces O&M. As the price points continue to decline, the NREL/EIA report suggests that the LCOE for wind will drop 20-30% in the near term.

[FogerRox]

44. Assuming a CF of 36% from 2007 you would be right, so would the EIA.

[kristopher]

22. WT certainly didn't want to see that posted, eh?

Last edited Thu May 9, 2013, 03:12 PM - Edit history (1)

The operational record of the global fleet is casting the safety forecasts of the nuclear INDUSTRY in a less than favorable light.

It is amazing that any objective person could, as wt has, so thoroughly confuse the integrity of science with the self-interested pronouncements of an industry that is arguably the most secretive on earth. In fact, it is so amazing that it crosses the line into the realm of the in-credible, literally that which is not to be believed.

ETA: Take the home insurance analogy used below as an example of the way data is spun by friends of the nuclear INDUSTRY on this board. The study in question doesn't predict the risk of a specific plant. It makes a statistical statement that the historic failure rate is far in excess of the predicted failure rate. It is as if several home builders claimed their homes were virtually fireproof but the insurance company is saying no, we have a historical record telling us that your fireproof homes are catching fire at a rate 200 times what you've predicted no matter the way you build them.

System complexity is your enemy, not the study.

[FBaggins]

31. Why?

It seems to fall pretty clearly into the "if that's the best you can do..." bucket.

Insurance agent - "Your home insurance premium will $126/month"

Customer - "What? You don't even have the address yet. You haven't asked me how much the home is worth or what it's made of... or how close a fire hydrant is... or when it was constructed and under which building codes. You don't know whether I have advanced smoke alarms (or any at all) or a sprinkler system. You don't know the record of my local fire department or how close they are and you haven't checked my personal insurance claim record. You haven't asked me anything yet... how can you give me a price?"

Insurance agent - "It says right here on your application that you want to insure a 'house'. A couple guys at Max Plank did a sophisticated study and told us that they knew how many 'houses' exist and how many have burned down. So we now know how likely your home is to burn down."

wtmusic - "Was that supposed to make sense to anyone?"

kristopher - "Makes sense to me"

[FogerRox]

15. Heres where that analysis becomes pig poop

Evaluation by Willem Post

For comparison: The capital cost of 7,000 MW of nuclear plants (7 standard 1,000 MW plants) would be about $28 billion

Based on the above, it appears the energy cost of the IWTs will be at least 20 c/kWh and of the nuclear plants about 10 c/kWh,


http://theenergycollective.com/meredith-angwin/221331/shore-wind-versus-nuclear-guest-post-willem-post?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=The+Energy+Collective+%28all+posts%29

Well the EIA does say the LCOE for a new nuke is 11.27 cents per kwh with a gridhook up, but the same document says wind, with a grid hookup costs 9.68 cents per kwh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

But this Willhem dude seems to to take the EIA LCOE for wind, and well..... doubles it....

Based on the above, it appears the energy cost of the IWTs will be at least 20 c/kWh and of the nuclear plants about 10 c/kWh, per EIA/US-DOE

And Willhem says 7 nuclear fission reactors can be built for 28 billion..... :~).....ahh more like 2, not 7.

[FBaggins]

32. Same error as above.

But this Willhem dude seems to to take the EIA LCOE for wind, and well..... doubles it....

Nope. Read it more carefully. His figure for wind is actually lower than the EIA's

And Willhem says 7 nuclear fission reactors can be built for 28 billion..... :~).....ahh more like 2, not 7.

I think $4Billion/GW is low as well (unless you're in China or the Middle East). But he's much closer than you are here. The construction costs for the four new reactors do work out pretty close to $4Billion per GW of capacity. But total costs (including financing) look to be in the 14-15 Billion range for Vogtle and a couple billion less for the two in SC... but that's 4.4 GW of capacity. Your claim of $28 Billion paying for only two reactors is way off.

[leveymg]

35. Your per reactor cost estimate goes right out the window if there is a single major accident.

Construction costs do not capture the total costs which must include the rising cost of insurance and related social costs in the event of catastrophic loss. I would argue that an estimate based in construction costs without accurate lifetime operating costs (including related insurance and uncovered social costs) is a red-herring, and thus the figures cited by the OP are irrelevant at best and more likely misleading.

[FBaggins]

37. Not really.

The cost estimate of a bridge doesn't include an incremental estimate of the chance that it could collapse in an earthquake... or the incredible loss to the economy that the loss of some bridges could bring.

And if we play that game, we must surely play far enough to estimate the cost of the millions killed by the burning of coal (not to mention health care costs, etc). You could easily have a reactor "pop" every ten years and still save money and lives over coal.

We could play those types of imaginary games for any power source or large infrastructure project. When estimating the cost of an imagined new Hoover Dam... do we need to include the "total cost" if there is a single accident?

[leveymg]

38. Your bridge/dam analogies really don't apply. A bridge collapse doesn't make an area unin-

itable for years and decades. Same with dam collapses. Different scales and types of risks require different measures and approaches to calculating total costs of operation and loss.

You'll get no argument from me about the high subsidized social costs of burning coal, but I don't see this as an either/or choice between nuclear and coal, so that's also a red-herring argument.

[FBaggins]

40. Sure it does.

If Hoover dam fails, thousands would die and a huge area (including Las Vegas) would be uninhabittable (or rather, habittable by hundreds of thousands of fewer people). The economic impact would be every bit as large as Fukushima. (Especially considering that at least two dams down-river would also fail).

Either way, the insurance cost issue has always been a false argument from those who oppose nuclear power. There isn't a single business/industry/whatever that carries enough insurance to cover the worst imaginable loss that they can create. We're not going to force the AWC-connected farms to carry enough insurance to pay (for instance) for a large oil spill when a large tanker collides with a tower.

but I don't see this as an either/or choice between nuclear and coal

You recognizing it for what it is or not does not change reality. Less nuclear does in fact equal more gas/coal. Renewables have a key role to play, but they simply aren't getting us where we need to be fast enough.

[kristopher]

18. Relevant data

Last edited Thu May 9, 2013, 07:47 PM - Edit history (2)

Levitt, A.C., et al., Pricing offshore wind power. Energy Policy (2011), doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2011.07.044

Review of global offshore wind prices


Results of study - applies to area in OP





See also:






http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/05/06/1966071/four-must-see-charts-show-why-renewable-energy-is-disruptive-in-a-good-way/


US nuclear

"...Before 2007, price estimates of $4000/kw for new U.S. nukes were common, but by October 2007 Moody’s Investors Service report, “New Nuclear Generation in the United States,” concluded, “Moody’s believes the all-in cost of a nuclear generating facility could come in at between $5,000 – $6,000/kw.” That same month, Florida Power and Light, “a leader in nuclear power generation,” presented its detailed cost estimate for new nukes to the Florida Public Service Commission. It concluded that two units totaling 2,200 megawatts would cost from $5,500 to $8,100 per kilowatt “” $12 billion to $18 billion total! In 2008, Progress Energy informed state regulators that the twin 1,100-megawatt plants it intended to build in Florida would cost $14 billion, which “triples estimates the utility offered little more than a year ago.” That would be more than $6,400 a kilowatt. (And that didn’t even count the 200-mile $3 billion transmission system utility needs, which would bring the price up to a staggering $7,700 a kilowatt)."

French nuclear

"... the negative learning curve continued with Areva’s 2009 bid — $7,375 per kilowatt (your price may vary, upwards, that is). Apparently Areva did learn that it wasn’t charging enough for its reactors, which are now nearly off the chart in Gubler’s analysis (whose left-hand y-axis goes up to $7500/kw in US$2004):

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/04/06/207833/does-nuclear-power-have-a-negative-learning-curve/

[ladjf]

26. I always appreciate your excellent posts relating to energy topics. You are doing a great job

of informing the DU readers. Keep up the outstanding work!

[FogerRox]

43. NREL & IEA report says wind LCOE to drop 20% to 30% near term

Somewhere in the massive 137 page pdf.

www.ieawind.org/index_page_postings/WP2_task26.pdfhttp://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/tablebrowser/#release=AEO2013ER&subject=6-AEO2013ER&table=16-AEO2013ER&region=0-0&cases=full2012-d020112c,early2013-d102312a

And winds LCOE is 3.3 (high speed) to 6.5 cents (Low speed) per KWH now... see page 121-125.

Add on 3.7 cents/kwh for onshore grid connection and 5.7 cents for offshore grid connection.

[CreekDog]

33. one could keep very busy posting each day in favor of nuclear on DU

it would get in the way of posting any other environmental topic...