Thursday, December 15, 2011
Japan Nuclear power generation costs surge ¥8.9 per kilowatt hour
Thursday, Dec. 15, 2011
Government report says post-Fukushima price rose to 'minimum' of ¥8.9 per kilowatt hour
Nuclear power generation costs surge
The Japan Times
Kyodo
A government panel says in a draft report that nuclear power generation costs ¥8.9 per kilowatt hour when including expenses associated with nuclear accidents, higher than a 2004 projection of ¥5.9 per kwh.
The new estimate, calculated by considering the result of the catastrophe at the Fukushima No. 1 power plant, shows that nuclear power is still one of the cheapest energy sources, the panel said.
But its draft report, released Tuesday, notes that ¥8.9 is the "minimum" cost of nuclear power as the total financial damages from a severe nuclear accident are still unclear.
According to the draft report, coal-powered thermal plants generate electricity at ¥9.5 per kwh, while the rate for liquefied natural gas-powered thermal plants is ¥10.7 per kwh.
http://www.facebook.com/nuclearfree
http://www.facebook.com/nukefree
In the 2004 projection, the cost of electricity from coal-fed plants was pegged at ¥5.7 per kwh, and from LNG-fired plants at ¥6.2 per kwh.
Among renewable energy sources, costs of wind power generation on land are estimated at between ¥9.9 and ¥17.3 per kwh, and of household solar power at ¥33.4 to ¥38.3 per kwh.
Looking forward to 2030, thermal power costs are expected to increase, while the cost of wind and solar power are projected to drop to as low as ¥8.8 and ¥9.9 per kwh amid expected market expansion. The cost of nuclear power is estimated to stay at ¥8.9 per kwh.
The calculation is part of the review of energy policy in light of the Fukushima crisis.
Under the national energy plan endorsed in June 2010, reliance on nuclear energy was projected to increase to 53 percent of the total power supply by 2030, from about 30 percent before the Fukushima accident.
Based on the panel's final report, to be issued later this month, the government is expected to come up with what is known as the "energy best mix."
The latest estimates are different from the 2004 figures because of what the panel calls social expenses, in addition to capital, fuel and operation and maintenance costs.
Social expenses are included in costs for nuclear power in the form of accident risk, and for thermal power in the form of costs to deal with carbon dioxide emissions.
Nuclear accident risk costs are estimated at ¥0.5 per kwh, according to the draft report, which notes that expense could increase further depending on damages caused by a severe nuclear accident.
So far, the panel estimates damages costs to be at least ¥5.8 trillion, drawing on the Fukushima accident. But that figure doesn't include all factors, such as expenses related to cleaning radiation-contaminated land around the plant.
Against Jaitapur Nuclear Power Plant Project Facebook Groups Pages
Jaitapur Speaks
Oppose Jaitapur Nuclear Power Project
550
Stop Jaitapur Nuclear Plant
308
BIG NO 2 Nukes! "Jaitapur Nuclear Power Plant (JNPP)
260
Jaitapur Speaks
189
JAITAPUR NUCLEAR POWER PROJECT PROTESTERS
120
The protest against Jaitapur Nuclear Power Project
108
Stop Jaitapur Nuclear Power Park (JNPP)
100
Scrap Jaitapur Nuclear Power Project
88
Citizens Against Nuclear Jaitapur
77
"Say NO to Nuclear plant in Jaitapur" ( Maharastra - India )
67
Save environment stop jaitapur nuclear plant
63
No to Jaitapur
29
Students For Jaitapur
27
Students For Jaitapur
27
Stop the Jaitapur Nuclear Power Plant
23
Lets Protest Jaitapur Nuclear Power Project
23
India Against the Proposed Jaitapur Nuclear Plant in Maharashtra
17
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Can California Do Without Nuclear Power?
Can California Do Without Nuclear Power?
Where Are We Going to Get Another 5,000 Megawatts?
Saturday, December 10, 2011
by TAM HUNT
independent.com
Italy recently became the fourth nation to pledge to phase out nuclear power since Japan’s Fukushima disaster. Italy accomplished this feat by a popular referendum, soon after Germany did the same in its legislature (Bundestag). Switzerland has also agreed to a phase-out and Japan itself has agreed to phase out much of its nuclear capacity in favor of renewables and natural gas.
http://www.facebook.com/nuclearfree
http://www.facebook.com/nukefree
Should California do the same? Could it do the same?
California has effectively banned new nuclear plants in the state since the 1970s due to a law requiring that there be an effective federal nuclear waste disposal facility before any new plants are built in California. And despite efforts to create a federal waste facility at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, and other places, the U.S. is still far from completing any such facility.
Tam Hunt
There has not, however, been any widespread push to phase out California’s existing nuclear plants. We have three: two in California (Diablo Canyon in San Luis Obispo County and San Onofre in San Diego County) and one in Arizona (Palo Verde) that serves California. These three plants provide about 5,000 megawatts of steady electricity to California and have never suffered any major accidents.
Five thousand megawatts is a lot of baseload power and would require enormous amounts of new wind, solar, and/or natural gas to replace these nuclear power plants.
But would we need to replace these plants? That is, if a decision were made to phase out the plants, would they need to be replaced?
No one has yet, to my knowledge, looked at this issue in detail. But the state’s grid operator, the California Independent System Operator (CAISO), has recently completed a detailed analysis for “integration requirements” to get to 33% renewables by 2020, as is now required by law since Gov. Brown signed SB 2. “Integration” refers generally to new natural-gas power plants to provide power when variable renewables, like wind power or solar power, aren’t available – because the wind doesn’t always blow and the sun doesn’t always shine.
The good news is that CAISO recently concluded, under its current set of assumptions, that California will need no new capacity to integrate the 33% renewables by 2020. CAISO examined four scenarios in its 33% renewables by 2020 analysis, some focusing on in-state renewables only, others including some out-of-state power, more wind, etc. The analysis found that only a small “load following down” capacity would be required, which could be met through curtailment of existing facilities, rather than building any new facilities.
Why such a surprising finding? A number of factors are relevant, but the primary ones are: an excess of existing natural gas generation, robust statewide energy-efficiency and demand-response programs, and a significant number of new cogeneration facilities coming online.
Not only did CAISO find no new power plants would be required to integrate the 33% renewables mandate by 2020, CAISO also found that by 2020 the state would have about 14,000 megawatts of excess power available, even after meeting the 33% renewables mandate. This is over and above the “planning reserve margin” required by state law. The planning reserve margin is 15-17% above expected normal demand for each utility. It provides a buffer in cases where demand peaks are far higher than expected – during summer heat waves, for example.
Compared to the 5,000 megawatts of nuclear power that serves California, it seems that the projected 14,144 megawatt surplus by 2020 may allow the phase-out of these plants in the coming years without harming the ability of our grid to function reliably.
It is important, however, to recognize that this CAISO report did not explicitly examine a “nuclear phase out” scenario. It would, thus, be irresponsible to conclude without further analysis by CAISO that we could immediately or painlessly phase out these nuclear plants. The responsible course of action would be for CAISO to include a nuclear phase-out scenario in a future iteration of this analysis and vet the results thoroughly with other agencies and stakeholders.
Moreover, the technical ability to serve California’s power demand without our existing nuclear power plants is not the only relevant factor. Another important factor relates to “stranded costs” of these power plants. Nuclear power plants cost billions of dollars to build, which is ultimately paid by ratepayers. Power plants must generally stay online long enough to allow revenue from power sales to pay for the investments. If they are forced offline, and contracts are broken, “stranded costs” must be paid by ratepayers. No one knows at this time what the stranded costs would be for our existing nuclear plants, but it may be a large amount.
Summing up, it seems, based on CAISO’s recent analysis, that California may indeed be able to phase out its nuclear power plants without great detriment to the state. But additional study is required, involving not only the ability to serve the electricity needs of Californians, but also the stranded costs resulting from such a phase out.
Tam Hunt is a renewable energy lawyer and policy advocate based in Santa Barbara. He owns Community Renewable Solutions LLC, which focuses on community-scale renewable energy consulting and project development.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)