NationStates Jolt Archive


Nuclear power cannot compete with clean coal or solar energy. I have proof.

Brains in Tanks
27-04-2006, 00:08
EDIT: THIS POST STARTED OFF ANTI NUCLEAR BUT THEN TACTICAL GRACE POINTED OUT THAT I HAD DROPPED A ZERO WHICH THREW ALL MY CALCULATIONS OFF. I'D LIKE TO THANK TACTICAL GRACE FOR POINTING THIS OUT. THIS POST IS NOW PRO NUCLEAR. I WOULD LIKE TO APPOLOGISE TO EVERYONE FOR THE INCONVENICENCE. (BUT AT LEAST I GUESS THIS SHOWS I'M WILLING TO CHANGE MY VIEWS WHEN PRESENTED WITH CONFLICTING EVIDENCE.)


Nuclear power can produce electricity cheaply once a plant has been built. It is cheaper than coal when you consider its environmental benefits.

To build a modern 1000 megawatt coal power plant would cost about one billion U.S. dollars. The total cost of building a nuclear power plant is hard to find, but one planned for South Carolina is estimated to cost 4 to 6 billion dollars. This is roughly five times the cost of a similar capacity coal plant.

The operating costs of a nuclear plant are cheap, at around 1.8 cents a kilowatt-hour. However the operating costs of coal plants are also cheap and can be less than 1.8 cents an hour in places with convenient access to coal. I’ll assume an identical operating cost for coal.

If the operating life of our plants are 20 years, then each will produce about 170,500,000,000 kilowatt hours of electricity in that time. The total cost of each kilowatt-hour will be:

Coal: 1.81 cents

Nuclear: 1.83 cents

Nuclear power ends up being slightly more expensive than coal. However, when you consider the environmental benefits it is actually a good deal. Sequestering CO2 would probably increase the capital and operating costs of a coal plant by at least 25% which would increase the cost of clean coal power to 2.26 cents per kilowatt-hour.

So coal cannot compete with nuclar power. As there is no shortage of uranium in the short term, nuclear power plants should be built. This is especially true when you consider that CO2 sequestering is unproven technology.

The cheapest form of solar power currently in wide use is solar hot water. Solar hot water systems cost around $2,500 dollars more to install than an electric hot water system and save about 4,000 kilowatts per year. Over a 20 year lifespan they will save electricity at the cost of about 3.14 cents per kilowatt-hour which doesn't compare well with the production cost of either coal or nuclear power, but it does compare very well with what consumers typically pay for power, so solar hot water systems are a very good deal.
Kinda Sensible people
27-04-2006, 00:15
There is no such thing as "clean coal". Even with refined coal and scrubbers, particulates and other pollutants would still be released.

Solar, on the other hand, may become viable with modern technology.
Naliitr
27-04-2006, 00:19
Hmm. Time to unleash the power of an essay I really don't care about.

Alex Wuori Wuori 1
P3/P5
3/5/06 Nuclear Energy: A Safe Alternative Or A Source Of Death?
As you may have noticed, in recent times, energy sources are becoming more and more scarce. If you haven’t noticed, well, open your eyes. We are quickly running out of coal, oil, and natural gas, the three energy sources we have been relying heavily on, and we now need an alternative. There are five major sources being considered: Solar power, wind power, hydro-electric/water power, hydrogen, and nuclear power. Nuclear power should be the new main source of power for this country, and for the rest of the world.
Firstly, let’s take a look at the alternatives we have. We could still attempt to scavenge the meager sources of coal, oil and natural gas for the last bits of energy they will supply us, but let us look at what those sources will cost us. Coal mining is a very dangerous job, and kills over 300 people a year in the U.S. alone. (WSWS) In China, which should also be supplied by nuclear energy, same as the rest of the world, the deaths reach over 3000 a year. (WSWS) Also, burning coal is very harmful to the environment. It causes acid rain, and destroys the ozone layer. It releases mercury. It releases what ever was in the plants the coal is made of, as coal is made of compressed plants, which may include lead and other heavy metals. It releases more uranium and thorium then nuclear plants ever could. It cannot be recycled. The power plants for coal are actually MORE radioactive then nuclear ones. The release of the coal plants lead to diseases and cancer which kill 30,000 people year round, not counting the people dieing in the process of coal mining. So, do you still want coal? That’s doubtable. (WSWS)


Wuori 2
Natural gas is as fun as coal. It is reasonable to assume that you have heard of natural gas accidents. A miner hits a natural gas pocket, causing an explosion in a mine. Well, what would happen if a tanker carrying natural gas has a small puncture in its hull? This would blow up the ship, killing the people on board. Then the natural gas would pollute the ocean, causing harm to animal and plant life in the ocean. Also, the natural gas would escape into the air, floating to human habitats. Not fun for the humans living there, as natural gas is deadly. Natural gas is not recyclable. It produces acid rain and destroys the ozone layer. In other words, its brother is basically coal. (CEN)
Now then, if we want oil, which is becoming a very scarce commodity to be found in the west, we would have to find other sources of oil. The area where the major remaining amount of oil can be found is… The Middle East. It is a well-known fact that most western countries and far eastern countries aren’t exactly in good relations with the Middle East. So, how can we get it? Perform costly wars to over throw Middle Eastern governments and then just take the oil, and then give one of the worst excuses possible for the war? According to many western leaders, that is an excellent idea. To most other people, it’s not. Also, burning oil also pollutes the environment as bad as coal and natural gas. So, the three former energy sources are out the window. Lets take a look at the five new sources of energy.
Firstly, solar power. Frankly, this is an INGENIOUS idea. But there is one tiny little problem. It’s the time when you can actually GET the solar power. When the sun is shining! Ok, so some people will say that excess solar power can be stored and used at
Wuori 3
night or during cloudy or rainy days. Ok then, lets say that there is an extremely long precipitation period, when the clouds completely block out the sun. Lets say this precipitation period lasts for a month, which some precipitation periods have been known to do. Would the “excess” energy stored from the time before the precipitation period started be able to supply the area affected by the precipitation period for that month? It is reasonable to doubt this. Also, during winter months, would the short time period in which the sun is out be enough to get enough “excess” energy to supply a household for the entire night? It is yet again reasonable to doubt this. Oh, and here’s another thing. Unlike other energy sources, the land requirement for the amount of buildings that will supply us with enough solar energy to supply the country will be MASSIVE. (Dave) Oh, and did you know that the process in which solar energy cells, which store the solar energy, actually pollutes the environment? (Dave) And you all thought solar energy was clean! Also did you know that the materials that make up solar energy cells are in scarce abundance on planet earth? (Dave) Ahh well… It is solar energy, and everyone loves solar energy. Ok, well, lets say that we DO get massive amounts of solar energy. The only way we can do that is to have build massive solar energy plants. And do you know where we can find the massive amount of land needed? Hmm… That redwood forest which probably holds some of the last creatures of many a species looks like a nice candidate for the spot where our solar energy plant can be built. In fact, it seems to be one of the few places that we can probably build our solar power plant, besides the marshlands and the desert, both of which have many species of animals living in them. Now we have to destroy one of these environments to build a solar energy plant! Ahh
Wuori 4
well, it’s solar energy, and no one thinks we’re actually damaging the environment. So, as you can see, solar energy is actually considerably harmful to the environment. So, this now makes solar power a valid candidate to be thrown out the window. (Dave)
Wind power! This energy source is definitely a good one, and will “blow away” the competition… *cough, cough*. Anyways, wind power should be able to successfully power the rest of the world along with the U.S., right? Hmm… Well, wind power defiantly does seem better than solar power, since wind is not restrained to a time of day. Ok, that’s nice. But exactly how useful are windmills at generating energy? It is considerably a well-known fact that, well, wind doesn’t exactly make a lot of energy. Unless the windmills are in the middle of a tornado, the rotations of the blades on the windmill don’t move fast enough to where it makes enough energy to supply, well, anything! So, we head back to the old “massive land amount needed” in order to get enough energy from wind power to supply the U.S. Well, there goes another few species onto the “extinct” list. Also, let’s say that wind just suddenly stopped for some reason like, it’s just not a windy day, or for some other obscure reason. Where’s the rotation of the windmill? Oh no, there isn’t any! Well, there goes wind power… Well, as you can see, wind power is yet another energy source to be thrown out the window. Or flushed down the toilet. Or done with whatever wherever. Well, if we have excess ground, we can use wind power as a little supplement to our current energy sources. But wind shouldn’t be a main energy source. (AWEA)


Wuori 5
Now we are on to hydroelectric energy. Ok, it’s obvious you’ve heard a lot of good things about hydroelectric energy. It’s not polluting the environment, its renewable,
etc., etc., etc. But have you heard about the little skeletons in Mr. Hydroelectric’s closet? Now then, where exactly are most hydroelectric dams built? It is a well-known fact that
they’re built in rivers. Oh, well that’s fine. After all, no animals live in rivers. Oh wait, how could we forget? The fish! Well now, how DO the little fish, or the big fish, if
you’re a fresh water crocodile or others, get up and down the dams in order to get to breeding grounds, feeding grounds, etc.? The answer is: THEY CAN’T! Sure, the fish can try to swim up the flow of water coming out from the dam, but if they actually make it into the dams, they should be prepared to go through machinery in order to come out the other end. So, as you can see, hydroelectric dams harm the environment by interrupting the breeding traditions of fish, and the feeding traditions of bigger fresh water animals. Now then, what happens if the fish can’t breed, and the bigger animals can’t eat? THEY DIE. And if they all die, what happens? WE DON’T HAVE THEM ANY MORE! So, which would you rather have, animals? Or a meager amount of energy? The choice should be obvious. The animals! Also, how do exactly do we fit those massive dams into that tiny river? Surely the river isn’t wide enough at the beginning to fit the dam in… Wait; there is an excellent solution to this problem! Let’s completely reshape the river by digging out the land, and in the process completely destroy many animal environments! At least then we can fit the dams in, right? So really, do you think that hydroelectric dams should be our main source of energy? Or do you think we should simply take a giant hammer and destroy them, metaphorically speaking? Wuori 6 Frankly, you should choose the latter, unless you want animal environments to be destroyed. (Sustain)
Hydrogen energy. There’s really only one rant about this one. But it is a deadly one. Ever seen a hydrogen bomb go off? It sort of creates a giant fireball that consumes everything within a mile radius. The process of a hydrogen bomb exploding is essentially the same as energy being produced by hydrogen. The thing is, apparently, hydrogen energy is “controlled” so that when ever you turn on your hydrogen-powered car, the whole of suburbia won’t go up in flames. The problem is, it’s not exactly easy to “control” hydrogen energy. In fact, it is possible for a hydrogen energy plant/car to lose control of its hydrogen energy, and then make the whole of suburbia go up of in flames. Why? There isn’t exactly anything that can entirely control hydrogen. Nuclear energy uses water, but unfortunately, hydrogen makes up water, so using water would just stop the energy process. Hmm… Is there anything else that can be used to control hydrogen? Thinking… *Jeopardy Music Plays* Thinking… Not much, at least according to Gail Hancock, an 8th grade science teacher, who explained in one of her lectures how hydrogen is one of the most unreactive elements on the planet. Since we’ve covered one reactive part about hydrogen with the bomb, and the other with the energy process, there really isn’t anything else, besides some obscure reactions, which affect hydrogen. And if we can’t affect hydrogen, we can’t control it. So frankly, it’s best to simply say that there really isn’t anything with which to control hydrogen energy, and you just have to hope the hydrogen atoms don’t decide to go screwy and send the entire of suburbia to heck. (HEC)
Wuori 7
Hmm, which energy source haven’t we covered? Ahh yes! Nuclear energy! *Turns on “Hallelujah” music* Hmm, yes. *Turns off “Hallelujah” music* It should be painstakingly obvious; nuclear energy is our savior in this energy crisis! Nuclear energy is a clean, affordable, safe energy source. It produces a lot more energy then all the other alternatives. The process of producing nuclear energy is a somewhat complicated, yet rather simple one. First, you take a load of uranium. You then put it somewhere safe, like a nuclear core. Then you load the core with coolant, to make sure the core doesn’t explode after the uranium inside it makes a massive amount of energy. Then, you somewhat in a way, “explode” one of the uranium atoms, which then starts a chain reaction that produces the energy, which is safely controlled by the coolant until it can be transferred to an energy storage facility. (Quarks) After the process is over, you will notice some waste created by this nuclear process. The wastes that are in a major amount are plutonium and thorium. Now your probably wondering, “well, where do we put this waste?” The answer is simple. This plutonium and thorium is very radioactive, but it is relatively easy to contain. (Quarks) But a nuclear power facility cannot possibly hold all this waste. So, the plutonium and thorium is loaded into radioactive-proof trucks, and then taken to a dumpsite far away from any plants or animals. (Quarks) There will be some plutonium and thorium that escapes into the air during the nuclear process, but this is contained in the nuclear facility by special fences, so it doesn’t escape into animal and human habitats. (Quarks) So, as you can see, nuclear energy is very safe, unlike all the other alternatives. (Quarks)

Wuori 8
But of course, now your still going to think of something bad about nuclear energy. You’re probably going to say: Well, what about accidents? It’s true, accidents
can happen. And they can kill a lot of people. You’ve probably heard of the many nuclear accidents in Russia, and the Three Mile Island incident in America. In these incidents, nuclear reactors failed to control its nuclear process resulting in nuclear accidents. The ones here in America weren’t too deadly, but the ones in Russia took many lives. (Quarks) Yes, accidents are very possible, as you may have seen and heard. But the major reasons these accidents happen aren’t because the equipment failed, or because we couldn’t control the nuclear core. In fact, the equipment is very stable, and it is very easy to control the nuclear core. (Quarks) The major reason these nuclear accidents happen is because of the workers. In almost all nuclear accidents, the reason why the accidents happen was a failure on the part of maintenance workers. (Quarks) The most common reason for a nuclear accident to happen is because of a loss of coolant. Remember the thing about coolant controlling the nuclear core? If there isn’t any coolant, there won’t be much control. But don’t think that we couldn’t have stopped the loss of coolant. Workers can easily supply the core with coolant from an alternative source if its leaking, and then have enough time to shut down the nuclear plant. The thing is, workers weren’t paying attention to the coolant levels, and then the coolant failed, resulting in an accident. (Quarks) They could’ve paid attention to the coolant levels, realized it was leaking, then supplied coolant from an alternative source until they could shut down the reactor. But instead, the workers decided to not pay attention to the nuclear core, resulting in the accident. So, if we simply better train and better discipline the workers in nuclear plants,
Wuori 9
there could be a zero nuclear accident rate! (Quarks) How cool would that be? But yet again you give me a reason why nuclear energy isn’t good! You say it is very expensive to build nuclear power plants, maintain the nuclear power plants, and research nuclear energy. Well, your right. It is very expensive to do all of that. In fact, there is no excuse to the fact that nuclear energy is so expensive. So that’s one bad thing about nuclear energy. But it’s a considerably minuet problem compared to other energy sources, in which animal, plant, and possibly human life is at stake. (Quarks)
Well, it should be obvious now. Nuclear energy is the energy source we should be using. You should all write your senators or something like that and get your nuclear energy programs up and running! Or would you just rather sit by and watch as animal habitats are destroyed and coal miners die? So, what are you waiting for? Get out there and WRITE!

Note that this is an essay I did for school. So if it seems crappy, you know why. Why? Because I really don't care for school.
Tactical Grace
27-04-2006, 00:21
Perhaps you mean 1000 MW?

Of course coal is cheaper. Is it better? No.

Security implications my ass. You get more bang for your buck hitting something else I won't mention.

And it's $3,500 per kW, not for the whole system, not including inverter and battery. It also shifts an equal quantity of capital investment to the public initiative, instead of government initiative. Where energy infrastructure is concerned, I have more trust in the government to spend the taxpayers' money, than in the taxpayers themselves. As far as the average memeber of the public is concerned, there is no problem, there is never going to be one, and it is discretionary spending.
Lacadaemon
27-04-2006, 00:25
Don't solar cells require more energy to produce than they generate during their lifespan?

(Or is that an urban myth).
Brains in Tanks
27-04-2006, 00:29
And it's $3,500 per kW, not for the whole system, not including inverter and battery.

Solar hot water needs an inverter and battery?
And this is just a throw away example that I found interesting after crunching the numbers. I'm not suggesting a hot water powered economy.


Perhaps you mean 1000 MW?

You mean I dropped a zero? That could ruin everything! *Panics, checks figures* No, it's okay. Thanks for pointing out the typo.

EDIT: Wait a minute, I could be wrong! Please wait while I check everything.
Tactical Grace
27-04-2006, 00:34
Solar hot water needs an inverter and battery?
And this is just a throw away example that I found interesting after crunching the numbers. I'm not suggesting a hot water powered economy.
Oh, passive water heating? OK, I thought you were referring to PV.

Well that's easy, but it won't run your computer. How will you access teh intraweb? :eek:
Brains in Tanks
27-04-2006, 00:55
Perhaps you mean 1000 MW?

Thanks for pointing out my error. I have gone back and fixed up the post. I am now in favour of nuclear energy. Sorry for the incompetance.

I would say that I am really embarrassed, but since no one knows who I am I am only mildly embarrassed.
Tactical Grace
27-04-2006, 01:23
Well, look on the bright side, people who change their minds after going out and doing some reading of their own, are very much the exception. If anything it is to be encouraged.
Clobberedfetus
27-04-2006, 01:31
EDIT: THIS POST STARTED OFF ANTI NUCLEAR BUT THEN TACTICAL GRACE POINTED OUT THAT I HAD DROPPED A ZERO WHICH THREW ALL MY CALCULATIONS OFF. I'D LIKE TO THANK TACTICAL GRACE FOR POINTING THIS OUT. THIS POST IS NOW PRO NUCLEAR. I WOULD LIKE TO APPOLOGISE TO EVERYONE FOR THE INCONVENICENCE. (BUT AT LEAST I GUESS THIS SHOWS I'M WILLING TO CHANGE MY VIEWS WHEN PRESENTED WITH CONFLICTING EVIDENCE.)


Nuclear power can produce electricity cheaply once a plant has been built. It is cheaper than coal when you consider its environmental benefits.

To build a modern 1000 megawatt coal power plant would cost about one billion U.S. dollars. The total cost of building a nuclear power plant is hard to find, but one planned for South Carolina is estimated to cost 4 to 6 billion dollars. This is roughly five times the cost of a similar capacity coal plant.

The operating costs of a nuclear plant are cheap, at around 1.8 cents a kilowatt-hour. However the operating costs of coal plants are also cheap and can be less than 1.8 cents an hour in places with convenient access to coal. I’ll assume an identical operating cost for coal.

If the operating life of our plants are 20 years, then each will produce about 170,500,000,000 kilowatt hours of electricity in that time. The total cost of each kilowatt-hour will be:

Coal: 1.81 cents

Nuclear: 1.83 cents

Nuclear power ends up being slightly more expensive than coal. However, when you consider the environmental benefits it is actually a good deal. Sequestering CO2 would probably increase the capital and operating costs of a coal plant by at least 25% which would increase the cost of clean coal power to 2.26 cents per kilowatt-hour.

So coal cannot compete with nuclar power. As there is no shortage of uranium in the short term, nuclear power plants should be built. This is especially true when you consider that CO2 sequestering is unproven technology.

Also I might add, I spent a while researching this last semester, Nuclear plants last longer than coal plants. I don't have the exact numbers, but Nuclear plants can last around 75 years, while a coal plant is more around 20-40 years. So that should add to the argument.
Ravenshrike
27-04-2006, 14:48
EDIT: THIS POST STARTED OFF ANTI NUCLEAR BUT THEN TACTICAL GRACE POINTED OUT THAT I HAD DROPPED A ZERO WHICH THREW ALL MY CALCULATIONS OFF. I'D LIKE TO THANK TACTICAL GRACE FOR POINTING THIS OUT. THIS POST IS NOW PRO NUCLEAR. I WOULD LIKE TO APPOLOGISE TO EVERYONE FOR THE INCONVENICENCE. (BUT AT LEAST I GUESS THIS SHOWS I'M WILLING TO CHANGE MY VIEWS WHEN PRESENTED WITH CONFLICTING EVIDENCE.)

Best intro to a post ever!
Novaya Zemlaya
27-04-2006, 15:15
Nuclear isnt as great as you might think -
http://www.feasta.org/documents/energy/nuclear_power.htm
Iztatepopotla
27-04-2006, 15:28
What happened to the idea of putting giant solar panels in orbit where they could last for a long long time and send energy back to Earth as microwaves (or laser, even better) ?

Has anyone seen it?
Dododecapod
27-04-2006, 15:49
It's a great idea, but it has one serious flaw currently. The MASER beam, while quite efficient for energy transfer, isn't efficient enough.

Basically, with the level of focus we can get with a MASER today, the quantity of energy received from an orbiting solar array is not sufficient to pay for the operation of the satellite and ground station. In addition, the "wasted" energy goes into the environment, creating (you guessed it) an increase in Global Warming and disruption of the local weather conditions (which in turn screws with the beam MORE - your basic vicious circle.

I have no doubt these problems will be solved. But for now, it's a non-starter.
New Bretonnia
27-04-2006, 16:41
I read Naliitr's essay... wow. You were right... crappy as hell :p

But seriously, I too believe in the value of nuclear power, and it breaks my heart that public hysteria generated over the Three-Mile-Island accident stopped any nuclear plants from being built from that time forward. (Only a few that were already under construction were completed.) People who favor coal plants for environmental reasons have never, apparently, seen the result of a strip mine.

France had a few plants, too. They scrapped them all.

Irony: The plant at Chernobyl is still running.
Ravenshrike
27-04-2006, 16:48
It's a great idea, but it has one serious flaw currently. The MASER beam, while quite efficient for energy transfer, isn't efficient enough.

Basically, with the level of focus we can get with a MASER today, the quantity of energy received from an orbiting solar array is not sufficient to pay for the operation of the satellite and ground station. In addition, the "wasted" energy goes into the environment, creating (you guessed it) an increase in Global Warming and disruption of the local weather conditions (which in turn screws with the beam MORE - your basic vicious circle.

I have no doubt these problems will be solved. But for now, it's a non-starter.
Not to mention that if the thing gets off track it'll fry the surrounding countryside.
New Burmesia
27-04-2006, 17:30
Not to mention that if the thing gets off track it'll fry the surrounding countryside.

No problem, my steak would be pre-cooked when I bought it. Even better, they might mutate, and have their blood turn to Mustard/Gravy. Mmmmm!
The Infinite Dunes
27-04-2006, 19:43
Doing a few quick sums in relation to Sizewell A, Suffolk, UK. I don't know if this is a good example to use, but I shall. (I think Sizewell A is a 1000MW reactor)

It is estimated that the cost of decomissioning Sizewell A will be £1.2 billion.

However the figure for total clean up costs is £70 billion. Assuming that all nuclear reactors are equal then this cost will have be equally distributed amongst the UK's 19 nuclear power stations, so it comes out the decomissioning will cost about £3.5 billion for any single plant. (I haven't included research reactors as I didn't think they would be big enough to make a significant difference).

Using the lower figure of £1.2 billion and using BiT's construction and operation costs this leaves us with nuclear costing 4.16 US cents per KWh. This is over twice BiT's original estimate. (google was used for currency conversion)

As far as I know the cost for long term storage is not included in the decomissioning costs. So this makes nuclear seem much more expensive.

However, I am still in favour of nuclear power for the next generation as I do not believe we have any other viable alternative to replace our dependency of fossil fuels yet.

edit: What are the costs for decomissioning a coal plant?
New Bretonnia
27-04-2006, 20:03
Doing a few quick sums in relation to Sizewell A, Suffolk, UK. I don't know if this is a good example to use, but I shall. (I think Sizewell A is a 1000MW reactor)

It is estimated that the cost of decomissioning Sizewell A will be £1.2 billion.

However the figure for total clean up costs is £70 billion. Assuming that all nuclear reactors are equal then this cost will have be equally distributed amongst the UK's 19 nuclear power stations, so it comes out the decomissioning will cost about £3.5 billion for any single plant. (I haven't included research reactors as I didn't think they would be big enough to make a significant difference).

Using the lower figure of £1.2 billion and using BiT's construction and operation costs this leaves us with nuclear costing 4.16 US cents per KWh. This is over twice BiT's original estimate. (google was used for currency conversion)

As far as I know the cost for long term storage is not included in the decomissioning costs. So this makes nuclear seem much more expensive.

However, I am still in favour of nuclear power for the next generation as I do not believe we have any other viable alternative to replace our dependency of fossil fuels yet.

edit: What are the costs for decomissioning a coal plant?

I think I'm confused... Does the 4.16 cents US figure represent the cost of decommissioning divided by the power output? Seems to me the decommissioning cost, like the construction cost, would be spread over the lifetime of the plant... Or am I misunderstanding your calculations?
The Infinite Dunes
27-04-2006, 20:59
I think I'm confused... Does the 4.16 cents US figure represent the cost of decommissioning divided by the power output? Seems to me the decommissioning cost, like the construction cost, would be spread over the lifetime of the plant... Or am I misunderstanding your calculations?Not sure how to explain this.

I'm just going to work this out again from the basics and show my working, which should help you understand

construction costs: $5 billion (from BiT's OP)
decomissioning costs: £1.2 billion ~ $2.1 billion
(http://www.carbon-info.org/carbonnews_027.htm)
-> : $7.1 billion
operational costs: 1.8 cents/KWh = $0.018/KWh (from BiT's OP)
Total output of nuclear reactor over lifetime: 170.5E9 KWh

Total contrustion and decomissioning costs expressed in the form $/KWh:
$7.1E9 / 170.5E9KKWh = $0.0418/KWh ~ 4.2 cents per KWh. This is slightly different as I've rounded at different amounts of significant figures.

So yeah 4.2 represents the cost of construction, operation and decomissioning spread out over the life of the plant. However, decomissioning isn't paid for untill the end of the life of the plant. Hence why it isn't normally factored into costs (I presume). Does that make any more sense?