Display:
Chinas investments in non-coal power are, near as I can tell, driven by firstly: public health concerns (coal pollution kills an insane number of chinese, and is bad enough to cause outright political unrest) and secondly constraints on infrastructure - The coal mines are in the interior, the cities are on the coast, and the railroads moving coal from one to the other are overloaded as all hell, which means that any significant further expansion of coal power on the coast has the additional cost of more rail lines to pay for. Hence the ever escalating investments in wind and nuclear power.  - Note that any way I run the numbers, nuclear-in-china has to have lower production costs per kwh than anything-else-in-china, which implies that the only reason they are not building even more plants than they currently are is because they do not have the qualified personnel available to do so, and are unwilling to cut too many corners on safety, which is somewhat reassuring.  
by Thomas on Sat Feb 6th, 2010 at 08:01:45 AM EST
and the railroads moving coal from one to the other are overloaded as all hell, which means that any significant further expansion of coal power on the coast has the additional cost of more rail lines to pay for.

(Which is exactly what's happening, in parallel with the continuing massive buildup of coal plants. China has three dedicated coal lines, all relatively recent, and upgraded continuously for ever more astronomical loads.)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Sat Feb 6th, 2010 at 08:05:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I thought to quickly check the Wikipedia article on the busiest and oldest of these lines, the Daqin Railway, but ended up updating it myself.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Sat Feb 6th, 2010 at 09:43:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
nuclear-in-china has to have lower production costs per kwh than anything-else-in-china

Even wind-in-China?

they do not have the qualified personnel available to do so

Or materials or parts production facilities. But hear hear, a recognition of production level related limits. If only those who recognise Peak Oil but reject Peak Uranium would recognise similar constraints on running up production from the more abundant low uranium content ore mining.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Sat Feb 6th, 2010 at 08:09:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes. Wind-in-china is also cheaper than wind-in-europe, but not as much cheaper. More imports of parts and materials, less "umpteen thousand construction workers".

the nuclear supply chain is in general in a frightful state, considering the scale of build we are looking at - China, India, Russia and France are all building out heavy forging capacity in a good old fashioned dirigiste rush, because that is the main bottleneck, and people are getting tired of being extorted by japan steel.  

Re: peaks. That part is not a problem -  Mining ops and enrichment plants take years to put into operation, but since nuclear plant builders/operators tend to sign contracts for decades of supplies as soon as they start construction, the market will have years of warning of increased demand, so that will work out. And ultimately, high/medium grade supplies will hold until we perfect breeders, and after that, well, fissionables will last us past the sun burning out.

by Thomas on Sat Feb 6th, 2010 at 08:56:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes.

I'm interested. Could you detail those calculations?

since nuclear plant builders/operators tend to sign contracts for decades of supplies as soon as they start construction, the market will have years of warning of increased demand

That's a point, but not enough. If (as in many a nuclear advocate's scenario) China, India, Europe and the USA would suddenly start a rapid expansion of nuclear capacity (say just on the level of this years' expansion of wind capacity), then there would be years of warning for a demand expanding rapidly for years...

until we perfect breeders

I'm not holding my breath :-)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Sat Feb 6th, 2010 at 09:55:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Putting rough numbers on chinas costs vis-a-vis the more "normal" parts of the world is actually a very funky calculation, but getting it out of my notes and into a post with links is going to take a couple hours. Should have it done tomorrow evening.
by Thomas on Sat Feb 6th, 2010 at 10:38:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
well, that was a busier sunday than I had planned, so here is my Back of envelope calculations.

Cost Of a Chinese KWH: China operates in a significantly different investment context than private investors in the west - Investments in infrastructure are effectively displacing purchases of US treasury bonds, so the cost of capital to a utility is very low - 2% is the number Google  spits out, which seems reasonable enough (The risk, to a Chinese bank, of lending money to a Chinese utility is one hell of a lot lower than the currency risk US treasuries exposes them to) - This lowers the cost of high-capital, low fuel cost power, Hydro, wind, nukes, compared to coal and gas.
Cost of nuclear: I have no desire whatsoever to make any guesses about what the true cost of a fully indigenous nuke plant is in china, since I do not see any way to get those numbers, but fortunately we do know what the cost of a Areva or Westinghouse turnkey build in china is. 1500 dollars / kwh.
Build times are four years or less, which, if the plant is operated for 8000 hours/year and amortized over 30 years gives a capital cost per kwh of 0.9 cents. Fuel costs ring in at 0.71 cent/kwh (assuming this is bought on the international market. Any guess at what chinas internal costs for enrichment ect are would be shooting in the dark..) O&M.. actually, no idea, but since the western experience is that this is the same for coal and nukes (and not much), I will leave it out for now.

1.61 cent/kwh + o&m.

Coal:
No good numbers on capital cost, since this is all domestic industry, but assume its half nuclear (and including the rail build, this is likely severe low balling ). -
0.45 cents
Fuel is 2 cents/kwh, and while china likely has lower mining costs than the rest of the world, this does not matter, because it is mostly going to or through ports already and thus could be sold.
So:  
2.45 cent/kwh. +O&M (actual cost of electricity in china is below this in some areas. Likely causes: Subsidies, and coal being bought very cheap near mines.)

Wind: western turbines set up in china: what reports I could find cite costs of 5-8 cents/kwh.
Chinese turbines set up in china: Would not want to speculate any more than I would about the chinese built nukes.

by Thomas on Mon Feb 8th, 2010 at 02:17:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Thomas: Chinas investments in non-coal power are, near as I can tell, driven by firstly: public health concerns (coal pollution kills an insane number of chinese, and is bad enough to cause outright political unrest) and secondly constraints on infrastructure

Do you really think that public health outweighs energy security and green industry bucks in driving non-coal power investments?

The march of civilizations is a series of defenses that man has put up against the dread of pure existence.

by marco (cowannar at gmail punkt com) on Sat Feb 6th, 2010 at 02:57:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Communist party cadre breathe the same air as everybody else, so, yhea.
by Thomas on Mon Feb 8th, 2010 at 02:20:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series