Support NeoGAF

[Frankfurter]

Wow, ok.

Cost of electricity = One time costs + annual costs
One time costs = construction, negotiation, bidding process, etc
annual costs = plant maintenance, fuel costs, etc

Electrical output of a plant = (energy density of the fuel) x (amount of fuel used) x (extraction efficiency)

Since fuel costs are a cost, and since you need less of a higher energy density material to achieve a specific electrical output, energy density is related to the cost of electricity.

It's literally the whole reason we value resources like oil and coal in the first place. This is obscenely common sense.

That's only true if you assume that all fuels had the same costs to aquire them. One kg of uranium is way more expensive than (say) one kg of coal, though.
If fuel A has an energy density of 10 and costs of 10 per unit, while fuel B has an energy density of 1 and costs of 1 per unit, then both's costs per unit of energy produced are exactly the same - although fuel A has a ten times higher energy density.

And PV and wind have no fuel costs at all btw.

 

[Hari Seldon]

China is bringing lots of nuke plants online since they purchased US designs and will probably end up improving upon them and selling back tried and tested designs back to the west, so maybe less expensive plants are in our future.

 

[Pinkuss]

I'm conflicted on nuclear power however in the short (and longish because of waste) terms it seems kind of necessary, especially the way carbon emissions are going.

What I don't get is Germany decommissioning all their plants post Fukoshima; it's not like are subject to the same kind of natural disasters (that I know of).

 

[Frankfurter]

I'm conflicted on nuclear power however in the short (and longish because of waste) terms it seems kind of necessary, especially the way carbon emissions are going.

What I don't get is Germany decommissioning all their plants post Fukoshima; it's not like are subject to the same kind of natural disasters (that I know of).

Not all were decommissioned actually. Only ~half, the rest will be phased out until ~2021.

 

[DrROBschiz]

Germany isnt even estimating going full Renewable until 2050 and currently the government is exerting a large amount of control over the growth and trajectory of the industry with both subsidies and regulations

The energy situation is far more complex than people give it credit for

It will be interesting to see what stage each energy option has reached by that timeframe.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601514/germany-runs-up-against-the-limits-of-renewables/

 

[Earthstrike]

That's only true if you assume that all fuels had the same costs to aquire them. One kg of uranium is way more expensive than (say) one kg of coal, though.
If fuel A has an energy density of 10 and costs of 10 per unit, while fuel B has an energy density of 1 and costs of 1 per unit, then both's costs per unit of energy produced are exactly the same - although fuel A has a ten times higher energy density.

And PV and wind have no fuel costs at all btw.

No, there being a relationship between a variable of an equation and the output of an equation is simply mathematically true. It does not require any assumptions. The only case in which energy density doesn't matter is if the fuel costs for a fuel multiplied by its energy density is constant. This is not true for the spectrum of fuels have available. It becomes definitely not true when you factor in fuels that are free, like air, or moving water. Clearly fuel costs vary. Clearly energy density x volume gives a specific energy output. A relationship exists. This is all I asserted. It's extremely basic.

I can make it even more basic. z = x + y
Do x and y affect z?

 

[Frankfurter]

No, there being a relationship between a variable of an equation and the output of an equation is simply mathematically true. It does not require any assumptions. The only case in which energy density doesn't matter is if the fuel costs for a fuel multiplied by its energy density is constant. This is not true for the spectrum of fuels have available. It becomes definitely not true when you factor in fuels that are free, like air, or moving water. Clearly fuel costs vary. Clearly energy density x volume gives a specific energy output. A relationship exists. This is all I asserted. It's extremely basic.

I can make it even more basic. z = x + y
Do x and y affect z?

We have to agree on disagreeing then.

 

[Ghost is Bad]

is the op a troll?

 

[Nivash]

That's only true if you assume that all fuels had the same costs to aquire them. One kg of uranium is way more expensive than (say) one kg of coal, though.
If fuel A has an energy density of 10 and costs of 10 per unit, while fuel B has an energy density of 1 and costs of 1 per unit, then both's costs per unit of energy produced are exactly the same - although fuel A has a ten times higher energy density.

And PV and wind have no fuel costs at all btw.

Or you could, I don't now, actually look up the actual costs instead of this silly numbers game.

1: coal costs about $0,0075 per pound at its cheapest (http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=coal_prices)
2: uranium costs about $22 per pound right now (https://www.cameco.com/invest/markets/uranium-price)

So yeah, uranium is almost 3000 times more expensive than the cheapest type of coal. But here's the kicker. Uranium actually produces roughly 14,000 times as much energy per unit of weight, so it's actually roughly 4,7 times cheaper right now. Granted, the price of uranium fluctuates - meaning that, at times, it can actually be more expensive - but that's the current situation.

EDIT: This also doesn't account for the fact that you need a heck of a lot less infrastructure to transport 1 lb of uranium compared to 14,000 lbs of coal. The prices above are for purchase and don't include transportation cost.

 

[Steel]

That's only true if you assume that all fuels had the same costs to aquire them. One kg of uranium is way more expensive than (say) one kg of coal, though.
If fuel A has an energy density of 10 and costs of 10 per unit, while fuel B has an energy density of 1 and costs of 1 per unit, then both's costs per unit of energy produced are exactly the same - although fuel A has a ten times higher energy density.

And PV and wind have no fuel costs at all btw.

1 lb of coal(0.96 kWh) = $ 0.02
1 lb of Uranium(23k kWh) = $22

To get an equivalent amount of kWh out of coal you'd need about 13 tons of coal. 13 tons of coal which costs about $535.

On a side note, there's actually a surplus of Uranium atm that no one's buying, so....

 

[Darkangel]

At this point I'm hoping China can push for the nuclear revolution since they don't have to listen to the general public.

 

[goldenpp72]

I work in nuclear power, op is a fool and has no understanding of the grand scheme.

 

[Muppet of a Man]

LW reactors were always supposed to be a stop gap technology

We should have been on passively safe nuclear reactor tech for decades by now

This is the truth. Irresponsible politics are the real problem.

 

[RoadHazard]

Nuclear power is great if handled properly. Certainly better than switching to coal, like Germany has done. That shit will destroy the planet.

 

[mercenar1e]

An update on Fukushima. I didn't see a new thread so I'm posting it here. It looks like the situation is getting worse. Tepco estimated the clean up would take 40 years but with the newest development it can be even longer.

Fukushima nuclear reactor radiation at highest level since 2011 meltdown

The facility’s operator, Tokyo Electric Power (Tepco), said atmospheric readings as high as 530 sieverts an hour had been recorded inside the containment vessel of reactor No 2, one of three reactors that experienced a meltdown when the plant was crippled by a huge tsunami that struck the north-east coast of Japan in March 2011.

The extraordinary radiation readings highlight the scale of the task confronting thousands of workers, as pressure builds on Tepco to begin decommissioning the plant – a process that is expected to take about four decades.

Tepco also said image analysis had revealed a hole in metal grating beneath the same reactor’s pressure vessel. The one-metre-wide hole was probably created by nuclear fuel that melted and then penetrated the vessel after the tsunami knocked out Fukushima Daiichi’s back-up cooling system.

 

[Timedog]

Nuclear energy is bad because I don't know anything about modern reactor designs, and also because I watched too much tv in the 90's.

 

[mernst23]

Nuclear energy is bad because I don't know anything about modern reactor designs, and also because I watched too much tv in the 90's.

Remember chernobyl? Modern warfare taught me everything I need to know about nuclear power. I don't want radioactive dogs coming to get me while I snipe in my gilli suit.

 

[Maedre]

Nuclear power is great if handled properly. Certainly better than switching to coal, like Germany has done. That shit will destroy the planet.

Germany isn't switching to coal. It uses is existing coal plants. The ones that are new were already in planing before we moved away from Nuclear.

Renewable it is and will be. Things like the implementation of Energy Management Systems like the ISO 50001 and DIN 16247 will do its part.

It seems like many here don't think about nuclear waste storage and plantdestruction cost. Lifecycle costs you know? Nuclear is expensive as fuck and has to much non solved parts to be viable. But hey what could possibly go wrong.

About new reactor technology. There are interesting concepts for so many years but I can't see statistics from a running version that changed my mind.

 

[LeleSocho]

Nuclear energy is bad because I don't know anything about modern reactor designs, and also because I watched too much tv in the 90's.

With all due respect to the latest generation reactors as i'm sure that on paper they are safe even if you throw 50 Tsar Bomba near them but i don't give two shits about it when the weakest link is still human corruption and negligence.