Japan Sees Nuclear as Cheapest Baseload Power Source in 2040 (financialpost.com)
- Reference: 0175701681
- News link: https://slashdot.org/story/24/12/19/1441237/japan-sees-nuclear-as-cheapest-baseload-power-source-in-2040
- Source link: https://financialpost.com/pmn/business-pmn/japan-sees-nuclear-as-cheapest-baseload-power-source-in-2040
> The cost of constructing and operating a new nuclear power plant for 2040 is estimated at 12.5 yen ($0.08) per kilowatt-hour, according to documents released from a trade ministry panel meeting on Monday. This cost assumes reactors will be used for 40 years at a 70% operational rate. The meeting was held to discuss the so-called levelized cost of electricity for each power asset, the document said.
>
> A previous study published in 2021 saw LNG-fired power plants as the cheapest power source in 2030. However, the latest analysis includes a cost to reduce emissions, while fuel prices are also higher. Intermittent renewable sources, like large-scale and residential solar, were priced lower than nuclear for 2040, the most recent report showed. However, when including the total system cost, including deployment of batteries, nuclear is cheaper than solar in some scenarios.
>
> Japan is currently in the process of revising its national energy strategy, which will dictate its power mix targets beyond 2030. The government has doubled down on nuclear as a way to curb dependence on pricey fossil fuels. The analysis released Monday also estimated LCOE of ammonia and hydrogen co-fired electricity, as well as pairing carbon capture and storage with LNG and coal power plants -- technologies that the Japanese government is considering for its long-term energy transition. Co-firing with hydrogen boosted the cost of an LNG plant by about 6% for deployment in 2040, while CCS didn't meaningfully change the price.
[1] https://financialpost.com/pmn/business-pmn/japan-sees-nuclear-as-cheapest-baseload-power-source-in-2040
Another factor (Score:2)
Japan has basically no Uranium so they import around 100% of it from the US and Belgium. So that means their grid would be dependent entirely on outside entities, which is strategically dangerous. I still agree with the decision to go nuclear, as it's the best we have right now, but that's a HUGE factor to not forget about. They are already the third largest consumer of commercial Uranium on the planet btw.
Willful (Score:2, Insightful)
> when including the total system cost, including deployment of batteries, nuclear is cheaper than solar in some scenarios.
In scenarios in which you ignore the actual decommissioning cost, yeah.
Cradle to grave are the only measurements which matter. Pretending the plant will last forever doesn't make the math valid, it makes the conclusion invalid.
Re: (Score:2)
Given the cost of nuclear decommissioning, I tend to agree with you. But I've never even seen a cost estimate to dispose of solar panels in a way that isn't an environmental catastrophe. If you're going to bury them in a landfill, you could just put your nuclear energy facility there too.
Averages away (Score:1)
In scenarios in which you ignore the actual decommissioning cost, yeah.
Since the decommissioning happens after around 100 years or more, the cost of decommissioning is less than a rounding error to the cost of electricity the plat produces over that time.
I think Japan knows a wee bit more about the actual financial aspects of nuclear than you.
Obligatory three-eyed Japanese fish reference (Score:3)
Obligatory three-eyed Japanese fish reference ( [1]Blinky [app.goo.gl]!) from The Simpsons. TFS is as if [2]Fukushima never happened [wikipedia.org].
[1] https://images.app.goo.gl/cCdTyEJpc28azGEK6
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_nuclear_accident
that is the USA you get godzillas with japan nukes (Score:2)
that is the USA you get godzillas with japan nukes
Political lies (Score:1)
Nothing else. The Japanese could eventually become energy independent, but not anytime soon and not on this path. Hence a hallucination is created here.
Re: (Score:2)
The delta "energy independence" from importing solar panels and/or the materials to manufacture them on an ongoing basis vs importing nuclear fuel once a century isn't much of an argument.
Proportional costing (Score:1)
You want nuclear – fine. But the cost should be proportional to proximity to the plant. Downwind and “close” free power, far away and upwind – full price, etc. The cost should reflect the risk. Dramatically reduced energy costs would counteract the NIMBY effect.
Tidal power (Score:2)
If the amount of money that has been spent on fission research had gone into the use of tides and waves, that would have long been established as the best source of renewable; no issues with lack of wind or sun, and, especially in the case of Japan, available close to the centres of population. But no, we were misled by the promises of nuclear boosters, and now are stuck with massive clean up costs...
The UK did too (Score:3)
Now they have to pay £250 billion (today's estimates) over 100 years to dismantle Sellafield.
Re: (Score:2)
And that 250 billion is just the estimate. Nuclear construction and cleanup costs have a way of uncontrollably ballooning up to near infinity. I really want nuclear to work. I consider myself pro nuclear. But that 0.08 number is a pipe dream that ignores near-infinite risk at both ends of project life.
Re: (Score:1)
Sellafield isn't purely a power station. Part of that £250 billion would be for weapons production, for example.
Re: (Score:3)
> Now they have to pay £250 billion (today's estimates) over 100 years to dismantle Sellafield.
Sellafield is a special bad case because it's an original experimental messy site. More worrying are ones like Hinkley Point B, which was designed to be a commercial reactor, [1]will take 95 years, [bbc.co.uk] if they stick to estimate . [2]keeps getting delayed and keeps increasing in expected cost, up to 25 billion [reuters.com] so far.
Right now the article says "The cost of constructing and operating a new nuclear power plant" will be 12.5 yen ($0.08) per kilowatt-hour which again suggests that they are again ignoring decommissioning an
[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8699v4dvexo
[2] https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/edfs-nuclear-project-britain-pushed-back-2029-may-cost-up-34-bln-2024-01-23/
Re: (Score:3)
Sellafield was initially set up as a plutonium production facility for nuclear weapons, similar to the US Hanford Reservation operation which is also a disaster in terms of hazardous materials and pollution control (saying that, a lot of the worst pollution in such sites is from toxic chemicals rather than radioisotopes and nuclear material). I understand the locations of the early Soviet nuclear weapons plutonium production facilities are in a similar mess.
I find the "forty year lifespan" and "70% annual o
Re: (Score:2)
> The real technical problems are things like "what if Russia attacks Japan and America again and targets nuclear plants as in Ukriane?"
For this specific vulnerability, isn't the problem that there are only a few high energy-output nuclear plants compared to other sources that are more distributed and individually lower-output. If that is the case, then, perhaps the ideas/hopes/dreams for an army of small nuclear plants addresses this issue (even though there are other issues).
Re: The UK did too (Score:2)
Why waste money to clean it up? Cleanup will just create more waste to dispose of. Just let it sit for 10,000 years or so.