Archive for the ‘Nuclear energy’ Category


Comparison of Arizona Nuclear and Solar Energy

December 9, 2015

Let’s compare and contrast solar energy and nuclear energy in Arizona. There is only one nuclear power plant in the state, the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station in Tonopah. There are several solar energy sites, so we will pick the Aqua Caliente Solar Project because it won the Renewable Energy World Solar Project of the Year category in their 2012 Excellence in Renewable Energy Awards.

Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station

This nuclear plant consists of three reactors with with a total nameplate capacity of 3,937 MW. If these reactors ran for 24 hours day for 365 days a year they would yield 34,500 GWh (gigawatt hours) per year. The actual output is about 31,300 GWh per year (2010). This means they have a capacity factor of about 90%. Averaged over time Palo Verde yields 3,543 MW.

Palo Verde became operational in 1988 and is currently approved to operate until 2047, giving a lifetime of nearly 60 years.

Palo Verde’s construction cost was $5.9 billion in 1988 ($11.86 billion in 2015 dollars). Its operating costs for fuel and maintenance were about 1.33 cents per kWh in 2004 (1.67 cents in 2015 dollars.)

Based on an average power yield of 3,543 W and a cost of $11.86 billion (in 2015 dollars), the construction cost per watt for Palo Verde was $3.34 per Watt (in 2015 dollars).

Agua Caliente Solar Project

This 9.7 square kilometer solar energy farm has a nameplate capacity of 290 MW peak.  Its first year of full operation was 2014. If it were able to produce its nameplate capacity of 290 MW continuously for one year the energy output would be 2540 GWh. The energy output was 741 GWh in 2014, which means a capacity factor of 29%, an excellent result for solar energy. Averaged over time, this solar farm yields 84.6 MW.

Construction cost for Aqua Caliente was $1.8 billion.

Based on an average yield of 84 MW and a construction cost of $1.8 billion, the construction cost per watt for Aqua Caliente was $21.43 per Watt.


The cost per kilowatt hour of energy for either of these sources is combination of the construction cost and the operation, fuel and maintenance cost.  The longer the facilities are in operation the lower the fraction of construction cost per kilowatt hour.

The operation, fuel and maintenance cost for the Palo Verde Nuclear plant were about 1.33 cents per kWh in 2004 (1.67 cents in 2015 dollars.)  The great advantage of the Agua Caliente solar farm is that its fuel cost is zero, and we will assume for the sake of argument that its other operation and maintenance costs are also zero.

The following chart shows various costs per kilowatt hour for each of the facilities for various lifetimes.


1.  $0.0133 per kilowatt hour in 2004.  Converted to 2015 dollars.
2. 2013 energy output.
3. $5.9 million construction cost in 1988 dollars.  Converted to 2015 dollars.
4. 2014 energy output
5. $1.8 billion construction cost in 2014.
6. (GWh/year) x (number of years) x (1,000,000)
7. (Construction cost) / (kilowatt hours produced over lifetime)
8. (Construction cost per kWh) + (operating cost per kWh)

Two blocks of data are highlighted in yellow.  These are the most likely lifetime scenarios for each of the power generating plants.  The Palo Verde nuclear plant has had its license extended to 60 years.  Aqua Caliente solar farm is made from First Solar CdTe modules that have a 10 year material and workmanship warranty and a  warranty of 80% of the nominal output power rating during twenty-five (25) years.  It is reasonable to hope that it will last 40 years

There is one more thing to be considered.  We have assumed so far that the yearly output of each of these power generating stations it the same year after year.  That is not entirely correct.  Historically, the Palo Verde nuclear plant has increased its capacity factor through time as operations have become more efficient.  Whether that trend will continue is unknown.

Solar modules tend to slowly degrade with time.  The First Solar CdTe modules that are used at Aqua Caliente will likely decay at about 0.5% per year. The chart above gives a best case estimate for Agua Caliente and does not compensate for this degradation.

Based on the highlighted sections of the above chart, Aqua Caliente Solar Farm will likely cost about 2.5 times more per kilowatt hour than the Palo Verde Nuclear Plant over the course of their lifetimes.

One more point.  Aqua Caliente requires 9.7 square kilometers to generate an average of 84.6 MW.  Palo Verde Nuclear Plant generates and average of 3,543 MW.  So it would take 41 Agua Calientes to equal the power of Palo Verde.  That would require about 400 square kilometers.

Energy is the lifeblood of civilization.  The pursuit of energy abundance is the pursuit of healthier and more fulfilling lifestyle for greater numbers of people.  I present this data to help inform the choices that need to be made in that pursuit.


Nuclear roundup

October 21, 2013


Abe looks to retain nuclear power in nation’s basic energy policy

Before the LDP [Liberal Democratic Party] returned to power last December and its leader, Shinzo Abe, became prime minister, many members of the committee under the predecessor government, led by the DPJ, had called for the country’s dependence on nuclear power to be phased out.

After Abe and the LDP took over, subcommittee members were reshuffled and there have been no demands from new members for an immediate end to nuclear power.

The existing basic energy policy sees nuclear power as a key source of electricity and has a goal of increasing the proportion of energies that do not emit carbon dioxide, including atomic and hydraulic power, to some 70 percent of the country’s energy mix by 2030.

Read more at Japan Times.


Hungary and South Korea

Hungary, South Korea sign nuclear energy cooperation agreement.

[Hungarian Foreign Minister Janos Martony] and his South Korean colleague signed a new bilateral agreement on the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.

Read more at (Hungary’s non-partisan international political daily)


Great Britain

Building to commence on Britain’s first nuclear power station in 20 years

The new reactors, which will cost £14bn, are due to start operating in 2023 if constructed on time and will run for 35 years. They will be capable of producing 7% of the UK’s electricity – equivalent to the amount used by 5m homes.

Read more at The Guardian

David Cameron


More eye opening facts about the Chevy Volt

August 18, 2009

OK, so maybe the Chevy Volt doesn’t really get 230 miles per gallon.  Are such exaggerations justified because they serve a greater cause?  The Chevy Volt will help save the world, after all, by reducing  Co2 emissions, right?


In fact, in some cases the amount of CO2 generated per mile for the Chevy Volt is the same as a conventional automobile getting only 21 miles to the gallon.  Read on…

When running on gasoline (known as “charge sustaining operation”) the Volt will get 50 miles per gallon.   According to the EPA burning one gallon of gasoline yields 19.4 pounds of CO2.  That means the CO2 emitted per mile driven while running on gasoline will be 0.39 pounds.

 ( 19.4 lbs of CO2 / Gallon) / (50 miles / gallon) = 0.39 lbs of CO2 per mile

How much CO2 will be emitted per mile when the Volt is powered by energy from the electrical grid that has been stored in its battery?  That depends on how the energy on the grid is generated.  If you live in an area where the power on the grid is generated primarily with coal, then the amount of CO2 per kilowatt-hour generated is fairly high.  If you live in an area where the power on the grid is generated primarily from nuclear, then the amount is fairly low.  On the average, though, there are 1.34 pounds of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere for every kilowatt-hour of energy generated for the electric power grid in the United States, according to the Department of Energy (2000).

The fully charged lithium-ion batteries hold 16 kilowatt-hours of energy and will propel the Volt 40 miles.  That works out to 0.4 kilowatt-hours per mile.  So that means on the average, 0.54 pounds of CO2 will be put in the atomosphere for every mile that the Volt drives on energy drawn from the electrical grid, assuming perfect charging efficiency.

(1.34 lbs of CO2 per grid kWh) x (0.4 kWh per mile) = 0.54 lbs of CO2 per mile

But charging a lithium-ion battery off the grid is not 100% efficient.  There are grid transmission losses and grid to battery conversion losses which add up to about 10%.  So running your Volt  off of electric grid power will yield closer to 0.59 pounds of CO2 for every mile your drive.  That is 151% of the CO2 put in the atmosphere by the running the Volt off of gasoline.

How many miles per gallon must a conventional automobile get in order to put the same amount of CO2 into the atomsphere per mile as a Chevy Volt does when running off of grid power?  That’s easy- about 33 miles per gallon.  Here are some cars that will do better.

( 19.4 lbs of CO2 per Gallon) / (0.59 lbs of CO2 per mile) = 33 miles per gallon

If you drive in an area where the electric grid is primarily powered by coal, then the numbers are even worse.  Burning coal to power the electric grid yields about 2.1 pounds of CO2 for every kilowatt-hour generated.  Driving your Volt with grid generated power will yield about 0.92 pounds of CO2 for every mile driven (when 10% conversion inefficiencies are added in).

(2.1 lbs of CO2 per grid kWh) x (0.4 kWh per mile)  x 1.1 = 0.92 lbs of CO2 per mile

That is the same amount of CO2 per mile as a conventional automobile that gets only 21 miles per gallon!

( 19.4 lbs of CO2 per Gallon) / (0.92 lbs of CO2 per mile) = 21 miles per gallon

So don’t be fooled by astronomical claims of miles per gallon for the Chevy Volt.  And if you are worried about CO2 (I’m not), then don’t count of the Chevy Volt to save you – it won’t.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 69 other followers