No question that growth in developing nations will require increased energy production, and solutions need be identified that absolutely protect people and the environment. But looking to expand production without exhausting conservation puts me in mind of a little kid asking for dessert before finishing their veggies.

I am not certain who said that, the Leveliseed Cost should factor numerous issues. For example, FOAK reactors have much, much more. Moreover, if you are referring to this,

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ad/Levelized_energy_cost_chart_1%2C_2011_DOE_report.gif

It fails on 5-scores:

1. Factor Capacity is over 90% for non-US reactors.

2. The BWR/ABWR and ESBWR reactors have higher operating costs than PWRs, which are the global norm. In the US a combination of PWR and BWR are used.

3. US reactors (even the most modern designs) are not competitive with their competitors. Indeed, the only reason the US sold its AP1000 to China was because it was a 100% technology transfer. Chinese disatisfaction is expressed in that they intend to fund R&D of larger, superior derivatives.

4. It does not take into account FOAK (First Of A Kind) costs, as one needs to produce several before economics of scale (in construction and operation) can be achieved.

5. Jordan is opting for superior reactors to those in service in the US.

============================================
Photovoltaic was somewhat more expensive when the DOE report was published, but it won’t be for long. Photovoltaic prices per megawatt dropped 60% in the in the 4 years between 2008 and 2011. What has happened to the price of PWR Nuclear power during this time? Post Fukushima, I would imagine both the insurance costs and the safety costs have gone up.
============================================

I disagree on all of the above. To start w/Solar PV is not actually getting cheaper, & the costs of even purchasing the land and space needed is simply too much. CSP (Concentrated Solar Power) has the best development potential, but still need years of development.

============================================
The price of silicon-based photovoltaic panels stagnated for decades while the price of silicon-based computer chips plummeted. Don’t expect this to continue for long. Even if utilities can’t envisage a profitable solar power plant, their customers will soon be able to produce electricity for less than the utility rate. Photovoltaic already beats utility rates in parts of the U.S. where electricity is relatively cheap and skies are relatively cloudy. There are two other significant parallels between the PC revolution and the future of photovoltaics. The first is that like coal and nuclear utilities, pre-1975 computers were centralized behemoths. Computer Pioneer Thomas Watson famously said, “I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.” and Ken Olson, founder of the now defunct DEC computer company said, “There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.” I don’t want a nuclear power plant in my house and I certainly don’t want a coal plant. But solar…

The other parallel with computer technology is that photovoltaic panels are now being mass produced in China.
===================================

Solar PV is simply not feasible and is technically too challenging to put on a grid. It is useful for micro-applications, but lacks the potential for macro-usage.

===================================
There may be parts of the world where conventional PWR and BWR reactors still make sense. But they should be built to survive 100 year floods and earthquakes. Jordan is one of those places where conventional fission is unlikely to make economic sense even five years in the future. But the sad truth is that what seems the easiest path today is seldom the path which will convey wisdom to our grandchildren.
===================================

I have to disagree w/that statement because Jordan’s capacity for CSP (Concentrated Solar Power) and Wind have not been exploited; but even if they were, they would not solve the energy deficit. Moreover, it does not consider the fact that while Solar PV is cheap (especially CPV) is relatively competitive to highly priced oil and gas, its space requirements results in diseconomies of scale.

To make matters worse, their factor capacities (availability) are only 30-35% versus 90-95% for nuclear, and over 99% for CSP (Concentrated Solar Power) alas, CSP’s main problem is very high operating costs as the technology is not mature enough.

Photovoltaic was somewhat more expensive when the DOE report was published, but it won’t be for long. Photovoltaic prices per megawatt dropped 60% in the in the 4 years between 2008 and 2011. What has happened to the price of PWR Nuclear power during this time? Post Fukushima, I would imagine both the insurance costs and the safety costs have gone up.

The price of silicon-based photovoltaic panels stagnated for decades while the price of silicon-based computer chips plummeted. Don’t expect this to continue for long. Even if utilities can’t envisage a profitable solar power plant, their customers will soon be able to produce electricity for less than the utility rate. Photovoltaic already beats utility rates in parts of the U.S. where electricity is relatively cheap and skies are relatively cloudy. There are two other significant parallels between the PC revolution and the future of photovoltaics. The first is that like coal and nuclear utilities, pre-1975 computers were centralized behemoths. Computer Pioneer Thomas Watson famously said, “I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.” and Ken Olson, founder of the now defunct DEC computer company said, “There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.” I don’t want a nuclear power plant in my house and I certainly don’t want a coal plant. But solar…

The other parallel with computer technology is that photovoltaic panels are now being mass produced in China.

There may be parts of the world where conventional PWR and BWR reactors still make sense. But they should be built to survive 100 year floods and earthquakes. Jordan is one of those places where conventional fission is unlikely to make economic sense even five years in the future. But the sad truth is that what seems the easiest path today is seldom the path which will convey wisdom to our grandchildren.

Before I clarify these numbers, let me remind you ladies and gentlemen that MP Kharabsheh is one who supports honour killings and his opinion of women is well known. Just ask journalist Rana Husseini.

On the subject itself, The UAE is purchasing 5400 MW capacity at $20 Billion, and another $20 Billion to ensure operation of these reactors within a 60-year period.

Is Kharabsheh seriously implying that Jordan is purchasing 1000 MW for $21 Billion? The reality is, it would be a world record, for reactor costs are measured by kW (not only in absolute terms) and then you must factor FOAK (First Of A Kind) costs, if the reactor is the first of its series. For example, the EPR in Finland (1600 MW) will cost some $7600 per kW (somewhat exagurated by the value of the Euro), or soem $12 Billion. By contrast, Bulgaria’s latest reactors from Russia are budgeted at some $5000 per kW, or $10 Billion; including long term maintenance.

In the end, the UAE’s deal w/S.Korea is valued at some $3650 per kW, partly helped by the exchange rate of the Won (ever wondered why Korean products sometimes appear cheap?)

Also, let us clarify the Fukushima disaster and success.

There are two Fukushima Nuclear Power Plants only 15km from each other. The Fukushima I plant housed elderly reactors without full protection. They were old fashioned BWRs, whereas Fukushima II were all new generation BWRs (BWR-3/4) with Mk.2 containment structures. These not only withstood the earthquake but also the tsunami.

The Fukushima I nuclear power-plant had several BWR-1/2 systems, and none had the Mk.2 containment, which made it vulnerable. In short, even the less than state-of-the-art Fukushima II NPP survived with flying colours; only Unit 1 (using the Mk.1 containment) experienced a Level 3 situation, which was quickly resolved.

Yet Jordan is looking at G3/G3+ PWRs; which are intrinsically safer than BWR systems. BWRs are cheaper and faster to construct, at the penalty of higher operating costs and water consumption; plus being somewhat less stable in operation. We on the other hand are looking at the finest PWRs on the planet.

An important typo on my part! Yes, the word is Billion – not million.

Project champion Dr. Toukan asserts the price is under $6Bil (rather than the $21.2 Bil price tag that the opposition claims)- in either case, hardly small change.

It would be interesting to see the wider economics of the Fukushima disaster – would be sobering for both sides of the debate.

Apologies for the typo, and thanks for the great comments – Laurie