If you removed the ITC (a federal tax credit for solar), the cost would probably be about 8c/kWh. Still, that's not bad. Austin Energy's 30-year LCOE estimate for natural gas was 7c/kWh, while the estimate for coal clocked in at 10c/kWh and the estimate for nuclear at 13c/kWh. Only wind - 2.8c/kWh to 3.8c/kWh - was lower.
All so wrong, the cost of solar panels has dropped 80% since 2008, the Wikipedia page is irrelevant due to the numbers being completely out of date and hence wrong.
The cost of solar panels has been dropping by about 40% per annum, that is set to continue.
Solar is cheaper than nuclear RIGHT NOW, any increase in the cost of uranium puts nuclear power further out of reach.
Just the generating cost of nuclear is 4.4c per kWh, the construction and decommissioning costs are a huge amount on top of that. There is also the storage cost of nuclear waste that has been spiraling upwards.
Why would I want to read information that is many years out of date when the cost of solar PV has been dropping by 40% per annum and has every reason to continue dropping. The EIA predictions are absurd to say the least. That page is pretty bad.
Even if all technological advances in solar panels stopped, the price of solar PV would drop further because most of the solar PV factories are being built right now, once the investment that put those factories in place is paid off, the price of solar PV will fall further.
Costs for renewables went down because of scientific and industrial/technological advances and yes political foresight helped. As for the subsidies, those won't be needed any longer, both wind and solar and viable without subsidy now.
As for "Why did the costs go up? I think it was political interference and artificial price inflation."
I don't feel the need to debate baseless assertions / guesses.
Ah, don't like the message, attack the messenger. (note the number of sources).
I did the math on the amount of subsidies the UK govt idiots are offering EDF, it amounted to a stinking £36 billion just for the kWh price subsidy.
Le prix fixe - billions of pounds in subsidies on UK consumer energy bills
At £16bn and a decade to build, Hinkleyâ(TM)s up-front costs are too high to be viable without government support. The main subsidy is the 'contract for differenceâ(TM), guaranteeing EDFâ(TM)s revenues at a 'strike priceâ(TM) of £92.50 for every megawatt hour of power Hinkley generates over a 35-year contract.
When the market price is lower, EDF receives a âoetop-upâ paid for on all UK consumer energy bills. If the market price is higher, EDF pays back the difference. The certainty should help reduce EDFâ(TM)s borrowing costs; CF Partners say EDF can now bank on £83bn of revenue, in 'real termsâ(TM), undiscounted.
How much is subsidy depends on the power price but CF Partners estimates in 2023 the âoetop-upâ will be £700m or £7 a household.
Mr Davey says the impact on bills will be âoenegligibleâ but officials estimate the âoetop-upsâ could have a total 'net present valueâ(TM) of £3.5bn to £9bn, using a 3.5pc discount rate. If EDF builds Sizewell too, the Hinkley subsidy will fall to £89.50 as some of the initial design costs will be paid for through the Sizewell subsidy instead.
The contract guarantees the Hinkley price will be raised to protect EDF from windfall taxes or other law changes. EDF says it will bear the risk of cost over-runs but if Hinkley is cheaper than expected it will share the gain with consumers. The price can also be adjusted if operating costs rise or fall.
So, the govt has offered at least 15.35c per kWh for 35 years on top of other subsidies. You tell me, is that cheap?
operating costs for 61 nuclear sites in 2012. The average came to $44/MWh
Add to that construction costs, decommissioning costs and nuclear fuel reprocessing / storage costs and you've got one very expensive method of producing electricity.
Wind power is continuously getting cheaper, solar power is continuously getting cheaper and there is good reason for that to continue. Storage technologies are also getting cheaper. Solar is set to become the 2nd cheapest form of energy, after Wind. http://cleantechnica.com/2014/...
In 2013, investment advisers Morningstar, Inc. concluded that, in developed countries, "reactors are not a viable source of new power".[12] Even in developed nations where they make economic sense, they are not feasible because of nuclear's "enormous costs, political and popular opposition, and regulatory uncertainty".[12] This view echoes the statement of former Exelon CEO John Rowe, who said in 2012 that new nuclear plants in the US "don't make any sense right now" and won't be economically viable in the foreseeable future, because of low natural gas prices in the American market.[13] John Quiggin, an economics professor, says that the main problem with the nuclear option is that it is not economically viable. Former NRC member Peter Bradford and Professor Ian Lowe have recently made similar statements.[14][15] However, nuclear supporters continue to champion reactors, often with proposed new but largely untested designs, as a source of new power.[12][14][16][17][18][19][20]
Nuclear generated electricity is expensive. Thorium nuclear generated electricity is even more expensive due to the reactor design needing to be more robust.
be cost effective to extract uranium from seawater,
Two things about that. #1 It is horribly expensive at over 15 to 30x the cost of current uranium. #2 The extraction process requires absurd amounts of oil based 'net' to extract the atoms of uranium.
Nuclear is already an expensive method of electricity production. Saying that this method of extraction is 'cost effective' is highly misleading. in 2010 Uranium prices spiked, the ocean extraction process would still have been over 7 times more expensive, not to mention there are only prototypes and estimates of cost at this point. Some of the estimates have put the cost of extraction at well over 100x current uranium cost.
The most advanced materials, which can be reused several times, can draw between three and four milligrams of uranium per gram of plastic each time theyâ(TM)re used, says Costas Tsouris, a researcher at Oak Ridge National Laboratory who is working on that system.
Uranium obtained using the traditional process today would cost between $1,000 and $2,000 per kilogramâ"about 10 to 20 times the current market price, says Schneider. (The price of uranium did rise to around $300 per kilogram as recently as 2007, however.) The new process could cut that cost significantly.
A sharp spike in uranium prices in 2007 had many people scared in terms of the sustainability of the nuclear industry, [at $100 per lb]
So if the nuclear industry is unsustainable with mined uranium then it is completely unsustainable with ocean extracted uranium, which realistically costs around 20 times as much.
Gas peakers use jet engines for quick starts, the electricity generated cost $0.19 per kWh, quite expensive.
With all of the new electric cars hitting the market lithium-ion batteries have finally dropped in cost Tesla + Panasonic are currently building a mega-factory to build cheap Li-ion batteries, cost is expected to drop below $100 per kwh of storage capacity.
I don't see why compressed air storage couldn't be cheap with sufficient investment. Geothermal can also be used for peak demand, it's another hugely under-used and under-invested in resource.
" Because state law apparently exempts law enforcement officers from the anti-texting or typing ban, "it's up to law enforcement agencies to set proper protocols, which it looks like the Sheriff's Department failed to do,"
In the US perhaps, but in the UK there have been a long string of cases where UK drivers have killed cyclists due to inattention and gotten a short driving ban and a fine!! One guy even managed to kill cyclists on 2 separate occasions and and still escaped prison.
This is why I want autonomous cars, they don't have to be perfect, just better than the best drivers and an ability to drive by the rules which in the UK equates to driving respectfully / considerately.
I think they just haven't gotten round to it (potholes) judging by the article. The project guy Chris Urmson, 'Engineering Lead' is aiming for the cars to be 'ready' in 5 years.
Good luck to them, but I can't help being skeptical. I think object recognition systems being a harder problem than they are willing to admit.
"why come out with a vehicle that has no steering wheel if it is not viable for another 5-10 years"
Because that is the product they are aiming for.
I do not want to see 99% autonomous cars on the road, because the 'driver' will not be ready for the 1% The will be sleeping, drunk, playing with their phone etc.
No, I realise that, but I think Google-cars difficulty is in the step before 'improvisation' becomes a problem.
Google cars problem is recognising objects. How to deal with objects can be programmed in. Moving the car is a relatively easy logistic, cars already have ABS and traction control. I would expect a computer to have better control of a car than a human. I would expect a human to understand the environment far better.
Indeed, but the problem is mainly one of object recognition, not 'improvisation'. Once the computer knows what is what the physics of moving the car are relatively simple, traction control, ABS etc are already done.
Slashdot Mirror
All so wrong, the cost of solar panels has dropped 80% since 2008, the Wikipedia page is irrelevant due to the numbers being completely out of date and hence wrong.
The cost of solar panels has been dropping by about 40% per annum, that is set to continue.
Solar is cheaper than nuclear RIGHT NOW, any increase in the cost of uranium puts nuclear power further out of reach.
Just the generating cost of nuclear is 4.4c per kWh, the construction and decommissioning costs are a huge amount on top of that. There is also the storage cost of nuclear waste that has been spiraling upwards.
And the cost of nuclear reprocessing? Very expensive:
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvar...
Obvious solution nuke Russia, it's the only way.
So I guess this never happened:
http://cleantechnica.com/2014/...
Why would I want to read information that is many years out of date when the cost of solar PV has been dropping by 40% per annum and has every reason to continue dropping. The EIA predictions are absurd to say the least. That page is pretty bad.
Even if all technological advances in solar panels stopped, the price of solar PV would drop further because most of the solar PV factories are being built right now, once the investment that put those factories in place is paid off, the price of solar PV will fall further.
Costs for renewables went down because of scientific and industrial/technological advances and yes political foresight helped. As for the subsidies, those won't be needed any longer, both wind and solar and viable without subsidy now.
As for "Why did the costs go up? I think it was political interference and artificial price inflation."
I don't feel the need to debate baseless assertions / guesses.
Why am I 'anti-nuke'? See 2nd half #47805367
Ah, don't like the message, attack the messenger. (note the number of sources).
I did the math on the amount of subsidies the UK govt idiots are offering EDF, it amounted to a stinking £36 billion just for the kWh price subsidy.
So, the govt has offered at least 15.35c per kWh for 35 years on top of other subsidies. You tell me, is that cheap?
Add to that construction costs, decommissioning costs and nuclear fuel reprocessing / storage costs and you've got one very expensive method of producing electricity.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/i...
Why aren't there more nuclear fuel reprocessing plants? Because it's horrendously expensive.
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvar...
Cost of building maintaining, removing new Wind farms?
Less than $36.5 per MWh
Wind Technologies Market Report
With the numerous ways of matching and storing wind energy,nuclear can not compete
Wind power is continuously getting cheaper, solar power is continuously getting cheaper and there is good reason for that to continue. Storage technologies are also getting cheaper. Solar is set to become the 2nd cheapest form of energy, after Wind.
http://cleantechnica.com/2014/...
http://i1.wp.com/cleantechnica...
Cost dude cost. Nuclear is very expensive these days, decommissioning costs are far far higher than initial estimates.
Hand your nerd card in please. Radios can be encrypted.
Economics of nuclear power plants - Wikipedia
Nuclear generated electricity is expensive.
Thorium nuclear generated electricity is even more expensive due to the reactor design needing to be more robust.
Citation needed, the articles I've read claimed $1000 to $2000 per kilo.
http://www.technologyreview.co...
If these new designs are so great then why does the nuclear industry keep going with the old designs?
Two things about that. #1 It is horribly expensive at over 15 to 30x the cost of current uranium. #2 The extraction process requires absurd amounts of oil based 'net' to extract the atoms of uranium.
Nuclear is already an expensive method of electricity production. Saying that this method of extraction is 'cost effective' is highly misleading. in 2010 Uranium prices spiked, the ocean extraction process would still have been over 7 times more expensive, not to mention there are only prototypes and estimates of cost at this point. Some of the estimates have put the cost of extraction at well over 100x current uranium cost.
http://www.technologyreview.co...
Current price is around $31 per pound ($68 a kilo).
http://www.mining.com/chart-ur...
So if the nuclear industry is unsustainable with mined uranium then it is completely unsustainable with ocean extracted uranium, which realistically costs around 20 times as much.
How's that nuclear waste problem coming along? Perhaps the mafia can help.
Just make sure that nuclear waste doesn't leak. Oops. ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Radiation leaks force transfer of nuclear waste from New
Nuclear waste leaking at Hanford site in Washington, again
After $40 Billion , America's Biggest Nuclear Dump Is Still
Radiation leak at nuclear waste dump raises questions
Ocean disposal of radioactive waste - Wikipedia, the free
Thousands of radioactive waste barrels rusting
Japan Times: Now 400 tons a day of toxic water is estimated
Because nuclear accidents stopped happening after Chernobyl right? Nope. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...
But hey, todays new breed of super-human won't make the same mistakes as those past
Gas peakers use jet engines for quick starts, the electricity generated cost $0.19 per kWh, quite expensive.
With all of the new electric cars hitting the market lithium-ion batteries have finally dropped in cost Tesla + Panasonic are currently building a mega-factory to build cheap Li-ion batteries, cost is expected to drop below $100 per kwh of storage capacity.
I don't see why compressed air storage couldn't be cheap with sufficient investment. Geothermal can also be used for peak demand, it's another hugely under-used and under-invested in resource.
Electrical energy storage and its place in a low carbon future.
How Tesla's battery 'Gigafactory' could change everything ...
And that's why we had crusades, to help people 'choose'.
Nope.
" Because state law apparently exempts law enforcement officers from the anti-texting or typing ban, "it's up to law enforcement agencies to set proper protocols, which it looks like the Sheriff's Department failed to do,"
http://www.whittierdailynews.c...
The officer also lied, he stated that the cyclist swerved in front of him. Evidence showed that was not the case.
Police committing perjury should be made an example of, how many over times in his career did the police officer lie?
Why shouldn't you be outraged? no-one should be texting whilst driving - that is negligent.
Whatever happened to police radios? Use the appropriate form of communication whilst driving FFS.
How does it go? "protect and serve", running people over is not protecting them is it.
'unambiguously outraged'
Actually there is an opt-out clause for police regarding exactly this, so the answer to "Are the laws different if you're a LEO?" Is 100% yes.
The local enforcement were supposed to put rules in place to prevent unnecessary danger, they did not put the rules in to place. RTFA.
Taxi driver in midtown horror suspended, but NOT for crash ...
I'm guessing this isn't true. A tazi driver gets road rage, maims a woman. No charges filed!!!!!!!!!!!
In the US perhaps, but in the UK there have been a long string of cases where UK drivers have killed cyclists due to inattention and gotten a short driving ban and a fine!! One guy even managed to kill cyclists on 2 separate occasions and and still escaped prison.
This is why I want autonomous cars, they don't have to be perfect, just better than the best drivers and an ability to drive by the rules which in the UK equates to driving respectfully / considerately.
I think they just haven't gotten round to it (potholes) judging by the article. The project guy Chris Urmson, 'Engineering Lead' is aiming for the cars to be 'ready' in 5 years.
Good luck to them, but I can't help being skeptical. I think object recognition systems being a harder problem than they are willing to admit.
"why come out with a vehicle that has no steering wheel if it is not viable for another 5-10 years"
Because that is the product they are aiming for.
I do not want to see 99% autonomous cars on the road, because the 'driver' will not be ready for the 1% The will be sleeping, drunk, playing with their phone etc.
This https://www.youtube.com/watch?... would be the tip of the iceberg, it would be worse than a drink driving epidemic.
No, I realise that, but I think Google-cars difficulty is in the step before 'improvisation' becomes a problem.
Google cars problem is recognising objects. How to deal with objects can be programmed in. Moving the car is a relatively easy logistic, cars already have ABS and traction control. I would expect a computer to have better control of a car than a human. I would expect a human to understand the environment far better.
Indeed, but the problem is mainly one of object recognition, not 'improvisation'. Once the computer knows what is what the physics of moving the car are relatively simple, traction control, ABS etc are already done.
I doubt the google cars will be able to handle snow anytime soon, they would get confused with regards to where the road is.
Traction? Traction control has been in cars for a long time.