The strongest source in the article appears to be Moniz and Kazimi 2009. Not sure if I've tracked down the one they're referring to, but the MIT Nuclear Power Update, on which they are coauthors (http://web.mit.edu/mitei/research/studies/nuclear-update.sht...) states:
The 2003 report found that “In deregulated markets, nuclear power is not now
cost competitive with coal and natural gas. However, plausible reductions by
industry in capital cost, operation and maintenance costs and construction
time could reduce the gap. Carbon emission credits, if enacted by government,
can give nuclear power a cost advantage.” The situation remains the same
today.
... citing increased construction costs across the board, increases in interest rates during construction of recent plants, and a decline in the cost of oil and gas costs after a spike in the mid-2000s. Their base case suggested nuclear at 6.7 cents/kWh, and coal/gas at 4.3/4.1. With carbon corrections, coal/gas rises to 6.4/5.1. With capital corrections equivalent to coal plants, nuclear falls to 5.5 cents/kWh.
Keep in mind that US data on nuclear efficiency is limited because we haven't built any new reactors in the last 30 years. We're running plants a generation (and a half) behind current technology, and they're still this efficient. Meanwhile, extracting gas and coal is becoming more difficult, and not likely to get any easier. Just take a look at the economic feasibility studies of Alberta's tar sands.
MIT's opinion?
In sum, compared to 2003, the motivation to make more use of nuclear power
is greater, and more rapid progress is needed in enabling the option of nuclear
power expansion to play a role in meeting the global warming challenge. The
sober warning is that if more is not done, nuclear power will diminish as a
practical and timely option for deployment at a scale that would constitute a
material contribution to climate change risk mitigation.
Honestly, the phrase "clean coal" should have have been clue enough to stop reading. :-/
The 2003 report found that “In deregulated markets, nuclear power is not now cost competitive with coal and natural gas. However, plausible reductions by industry in capital cost, operation and maintenance costs and construction time could reduce the gap. Carbon emission credits, if enacted by government, can give nuclear power a cost advantage.” The situation remains the same today.
... citing increased construction costs across the board, increases in interest rates during construction of recent plants, and a decline in the cost of oil and gas costs after a spike in the mid-2000s. Their base case suggested nuclear at 6.7 cents/kWh, and coal/gas at 4.3/4.1. With carbon corrections, coal/gas rises to 6.4/5.1. With capital corrections equivalent to coal plants, nuclear falls to 5.5 cents/kWh.
Keep in mind that US data on nuclear efficiency is limited because we haven't built any new reactors in the last 30 years. We're running plants a generation (and a half) behind current technology, and they're still this efficient. Meanwhile, extracting gas and coal is becoming more difficult, and not likely to get any easier. Just take a look at the economic feasibility studies of Alberta's tar sands.
MIT's opinion?
In sum, compared to 2003, the motivation to make more use of nuclear power is greater, and more rapid progress is needed in enabling the option of nuclear power expansion to play a role in meeting the global warming challenge. The sober warning is that if more is not done, nuclear power will diminish as a practical and timely option for deployment at a scale that would constitute a material contribution to climate change risk mitigation.
Honestly, the phrase "clean coal" should have have been clue enough to stop reading. :-/