Wind vs Nuclear
TL:DR; Wind is built out faster, Nuclear is way better
As I dive into the numbers for our decisions on power, I keep coming up with results I did not expect. This is the most surprising one to date. But, we must be guided by the numbers as otherwise we’re going to get suboptimal results
"I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind."
~ Lord Kelvin
Ok, so we need 1.4GW of power. We’re considering a Korean APR1400 nuclear plant and a wind farm. Let’s see how this plays out.
Key Considerations
Before diving into specifics, it’s important to note some fundamental differences between these two energy sources:
Nuclear power provides consistent, baseload electricity regardless of weather conditions.
Wind power is intermittent, meaning its output fluctuates based on wind speed. To achieve an average production of 1.4 GW, you need enough turbines to generate significantly more than 1.4 GW when the wind blows strongly, since they won’t always operate at full capacity.
The Contenders
APR1400 Nuclear Reactor
The APR1400 is an advanced pressurized water reactor designed by the Korea Electric Power Corporation. It's a third-generation reactor with a gross electrical output of 1.4GW and a 60-year design life.1
Onshore Wind Farm
To produce an average of 1.4 GW, we must account for the fact that wind turbines don’t run at full capacity all the time. The capacity factor—the ratio of actual energy produced to maximum possible energy—typically ranges from 35% to 50% for modern onshore wind farms.2 Assuming a conservative capacity factor of 40%, the installed capacity would need to be:
InstalledCapacity = DesiredAverageOutput/CapacityFactor = 1.4GW/0.4 = 3.5GWThis means the wind farm would need turbines capable of producing up to 3.5 GW when operating at full capacity. I want to stress here that this does not mean the wind will produce a consistent reliable 1.4GW. It means that the wind turbines will produce irregular output that will range from 0 to 3.5GW.3
Capacity and Land Use
Nuclear
The APR1400 reactor consistently produces 1.4 GW of power, occupying a relatively small footprint. A typical nuclear plant site might cover about 1,000 acres (4 km²), much of which serves as a buffer zone.4
Wind
Wind farms require significantly more land. Assuming a capacity factor of 35% (a reasonable average for modern onshore wind), we'd need a nameplate capacity of about 4 GW to average 1.4 GW over time. This translates to roughly 1,000-1,500 modern wind turbines, depending on their size. A wind farm of this scale would require approximately 150,000 to 300,000 acres (600-1,200 km²) of land.5 However, much of this land can still be used for agriculture or other purposes.
Costs
Nuclear
The APR1400 is one of the most advanced pressurized water reactors in operation today. It has been deployed in South Korea and the United Arab Emirates, with proven performance records.
Capital Costs: Building a new APR1400 typically costs around $5–7 billion USD per reactor, depending on location and regulatory environment. For example, the Barakah Nuclear Energy Plant in the UAE, which uses four APR1400 units, had a total project cost of roughly $24.4 billion (averaging ~$6.1 billion per unit).6
Lifetime: A nuclear plant lasts 80+ years.
Operational Costs: Once operational, nuclear plants have relatively low fuel costs but require significant investment in maintenance, safety systems, and waste management. Annual operating costs can range from $100 million to $200 million.7
Wind
Capital Costs: Modern onshore wind turbines cost about $1–2 million per MW of installed capacity. For 3.5 GW, the capital cost could range from $3.5 billion to $7 billion.8 However, economies of scale and regional subsidies might reduce this figure slightly.
Lifetime: A wind turbine lasts 20 - 25 years.
Operational Costs: With wind farms there’s no fuel to purchase which is an advantage. Maintenance costs average around $40,000–$80,000 per MW annually, or $140 million–$280 million per year for a 3.5 GW installation.9
Transmission Infrastructure
Nuclear Power
If the nuclear plant replaces an existing coal plant, as assumed here, no additional high-voltage transmission lines are needed. Existing infrastructure can handle the steady 1.4 GW output. You just move the HVAC lines 1/2 mile over to the nuclear plant.
Onshore Wind Farm
Because wind farms are often located far from urban centers where demand is highest, extensive new transmission lines may be required. These lines add both cost and complexity. For instance, the Texas Competitive Renewable Energy Zone (CREZ) program spent over $7 billion to build transmission lines connecting remote wind farms to cities.10 Depending on location, similar investments could apply to our 3.5 GW wind farm.
Construction Timelines
Nuclear Power
Building a nuclear plant is a lengthy process, taking 8–12 years from approval to commissioning. Regulatory hurdles, financing challenges, and complex engineering contribute to the timeline. For example, the Barakah plant took nearly a decade to complete.11
Onshore Wind Farm
Wind farms can be constructed much faster, typically within 2–4 years. Modular components allow for quicker assembly, and fewer permits are usually required. However, integrating the farm into the grid and building necessary transmission lines can extend the overall timeline.
Recent Improvements and Future Outlook
Nuclear
The APR1400 design has seen improvements in safety features and construction efficiency over the past decade. Future advancements are expected to focus on further enhancing safety, reducing construction times, and potentially developing smaller modular versions.12
Wind
Wind turbine technology has advanced rapidly. Over the past decade, average turbine capacities have increased from around 2 MW to 3-4 MW for onshore models, with some reaching 5-6 MW. Turbine heights and rotor diameters have also grown, allowing for greater energy capture. Looking ahead, we can expect continued improvements in turbine efficiency, with some manufacturers working on 7-8 MW onshore models. Advanced materials and smart control systems are likely to further boost performance and reliability.13
Real-World Examples
Nuclear
The Shin-Kori 3 and 4 units in South Korea, both APR1400 reactors, were completed in 2016 and 2019 respectively. Their final cost was about $6.46 billion for the two units combined.14
Wind
While there aren't many single wind farms of 1.4 GW average output, we can look at large-scale projects for comparison. The 845 MW Shepherd's Flat wind farm in Oregon, completed in 2012, cost approximately $2 billion.15
Conclusion
So how does it play out?
Nuclear
capex - $5b - $7b
Good for 80+ years
opex - $100m - $200m / year
reliability - consistent 1.4GW regardless of conditions
land use - minimal
time to build - 8 - 12 years
Wind
$3.5b - $7b plus transmission lines16
Rebuild every 20 - 25 years, so $10.5b for 60 - 75 years
opex - $140m - $280M / year
reliability - unpredictably intermittent
land use - local objections are making this a larger issue
time to build - 2 - 4 years plus transmission lines
Both nuclear and wind power offer viable pathways to decarbonizing electricity grids, but they come with distinct trade-offs. Nuclear provides reliable, baseload power with minimal land use but has long lead times. Wind is intermittent with major issues for backup power17, demands approval to site on vast tracts of land, and potentially expensive transmission upgrades but can be built out sooner.
In terms of capex for the first 20 - 25 years, they’re comparable. Over 80 years nuclear is way cheaper. In terms of opex - they’re comparable.
If nuclear could be built as fast this would be a slam dunk in favor of nuclear. By every other measure nuclear is equal or superior to wind. Every bloody one.
This surprised me. I assumed Wind would be significantly cheaper. Why else would we be building wind all over the place and no nuclear? This is nuts. Could someone please explain to me why all the green energy efforts in the U.S. are building wind instead of nuclear?
My take away from this? Build a CCGT plant to the left of a coal plant to switch from coal to gas today. Build a nuclear plant to the right of the coal plant and switch to it when done.18 And then sell the CCGTs to a country that is then making the same transition.
Although based on older existing nuclear plants, an expected life of 80 or even 100 years is possible.
And batteries are not a solution to this intermittency
Land Based Wind Market Report (again)
This is very dependent on the location of the wind farm
This is N2N - Natural gas to Nuclear
First off depending on where you put your wind you're going to have different capacity factors. In Ontario Canada you're looking at like 25% capacity factor. Many places in the world are going to be similar.
Secondly, and this is the big one. As soon as you average out an intermittent source of energy you've lost the plot. You've taken something incompatiable with being averaged and then averaged it. Think of this way. Say you're designing a building code for houses to withstand earthquakes. During an earthquake the house will be accellerate by 5G for 1 minute. This happens once a year. But for some reason you average it out. Now it's that 5g for 1 minute per 512,640 minutes (1 year). So on average the house will shake 0.0000097G per minute for a year and you will now base your building code on that. It's silly and doesn't make sense to do this.
So again, as soon as you average out an intermittent source you're screwed. Frequently the source isn't producing energy, in which case you need another source to back it up. OR if you install to much of it you're now producing too much energy and you need to curtail.
To get the same service as a nuclear plant, you in addition need a lot of storage and overbuild (to compensate for below average wind years) and/or backup powerplants fuelled by (expensive) carbon neutral fuel or using CCS technology.
For the sake of fairness one should add that nuclear power only achieves your quoted capital costs with repeat build, while FOAK is a lot more expensive. So the first few reactors will have significantly higher capital costs than you assumed here. But we know nuclear projects can be done fast and on time and on budget with experience, as China and Russia are demonstrating again and again.