|
|
Post by davidm on Apr 28, 2012 3:01:29 GMT 9.5
I appreciate that this forum is built around nuclear power advocacy but from my stand point that means one has to address some of the political questions that it raises. One is the requirement for heavy public subsidies and putting the government on hook for high level insurance claims. So I'm asking does anybody here have a road map for achieving finally a condition where nuclear pays for itself, in effect it doesn't come to the government for hand outs? In the mean time this is the kind of thing you read. grist.org/nuclear/stop-the-nuclear-industry-welfare-program/ |
|
|
|
Post by Anon on Apr 28, 2012 3:31:57 GMT 9.5
Government is on the hook for high level insurance claims for everything because there is a limit to how much private insurers are willing to cover, just that in the US they actually bothered creating a law specifically stating that they'll cover damages above a certain level (which likely will never be caused by a western reactor) whereas with say, hydroelectricity they just left it unstated (and hydro can do a lot more damage than nuclear). Paid off nuclear power plants are among the cheapest generators out there so are already self-supporting (including having the costs of decommissioning and waste disposal built into the price of the electricity they sell), the problem is in actually getting a power plant built in the first place where onerous regulations and activist delays can drive up the cost of the power plant quite significantly (comparing the construction time of power plants built under AEC regulation with NRC regulation and it's obvious that the NRC should not exist). Then you've got the fact that the competitors to nuclear don't have to put up with the same excessive regulations. |
|
|
|
Post by Luke Weston on Apr 28, 2012 17:50:57 GMT 9.5
The Price-Anderson act (looking at the issue in a USA-centric way, I know) specifically says that the nuclear energy industry has to cover itself with an extremely large liability pool, up to some extremely large sum of money.
But there is no comparable legislation for the oil or fossil fuel industry or the chemical industry or dam industry - in case of a serious problem in those industries (Deepwater Horizon for example) there is no industry-funded insurance pool... the goverment just ends up on the hook for 100% of it, even though there is no prior legislation saying that and it's just quietly implied.
It would arguably be really good to extend the Price-Anderson model to other sorts of industries such as petroleum and chemical and hydroelectric industries.
|
|
|
|
Post by eclipse on Apr 28, 2012 20:23:25 GMT 9.5
I appreciate that this forum is built around nuclear power advocacy but from my stand point that means one has to address some of the political questions that it raises. One is the requirement for heavy public subsidies and putting the government on hook for high level insurance claims. So I'm asking does anybody here have a road map for achieving finally a condition where nuclear pays for itself, in effect it doesn't come to the government for hand outs? In the mean time this is the kind of thing you read. grist.org/nuclear/stop-the-nuclear-industry-welfare-program/Heaps of industries get government support to get started. The internet cost vast amounts of money to set up in the States, but has made even more since. Anyway, I'm not sure which thread you started to discuss steady state economics in but here goes. While most politicians and economists insist that their nation's GDP has to grow or it will be disaster for all, the tools for steady state capitalism have already been developed. I'm no economist  but an economics friend of mine assures me that there are economic tools for this within the existing arrangements. He was rather chuffed to find out old Robert Solow had even developed some of the concepts. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_state_economyWe have to meet all human needs before the global population will stabilise. We have to do this with sustainable technologies to cut the biological impact of all these people. We have to do it this time or a collapse of civilisation may just prove worse for the environment than if a high-tech clean Industrial Civilisation 2.0 were built. We have to give it our best shot for the sake of our dreams and to reach our potential. I see no reason we have to fail. |
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Apr 28, 2012 21:39:14 GMT 9.5
I think steady state economy stuff would belong in the sustainability forum.
|
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Apr 29, 2012 15:19:16 GMT 9.5
Each country decides how much of the cost is to be bourne by taxpayers and how much by ratepayers. This holds for all forms of generators as well as transmission and distribution.
For example, in Britain the NPP operators pay 98% of the cost of running the regulatory agency. In the US NRC is funded by taxpayers. If changed to the British system this would add about 1.5--2 mils per kilowatt-hour to the busbar cost of running an NPP.
I know of no electricity grid anywhere in the world which does not have some of the costs paid by taxpayers, but perhaps such a grid does exist.
|
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Apr 29, 2012 18:59:08 GMT 9.5
I thought the US NRC was partly funded by fees charged to the companies regulated.
|
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Apr 30, 2012 12:23:40 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
|
Post by proteos on Apr 30, 2012 23:19:28 GMT 9.5
One is the requirement for heavy public subsidies and putting the government on hook for high level insurance claims. So I'm asking does anybody here have a road map for achieving finally a condition where nuclear pays for itself, in effect it doesn't come to the government for hand outs? For the subsidy problem, it could be divided in two parts: government guarantees (which only have an option value) and direct cash handouts. France has had a viable nuclear programme with the former but without the latter. As a state owned outfit EDF has been able to borrow at the sovereign interest rate because of the guarantee. It has been profitable since the end of the 70s and has repaid its debt linked to the nuclear programme (or most of it since the last reactors started by the end of the 90s). The price of electricity has been competitive even at the end of the 90s with oil below $10/barrel. Now, with the barrel around $100, it's the cheapest in western europe, both for industrial and retail customers. The Court des comptes (the french government auditing body) has published a report ( english summary), whose conclusion can be summarized as: no hidden costs apart from the question of insurance. So to the question, when would be the nuclear industry a self sufficient? The answer could be: yesterday in some parts of the world. Those are the parts without coal, gas, oil and sufficient hydro power. Now, the problem with new nuclear builds are the costs of GenIII plants which require high capacity factors to make them pay for themselves with today's price of power (when on budget). The other problem is subsidization of other means of production (ie: onshore wind) which lower the market price while not suffering any of it (because of the subsidy). |
|
|
|
Post by davidm on May 1, 2012 0:34:08 GMT 9.5
One is the requirement for heavy public subsidies and putting the government on hook for high level insurance claims. So I'm asking does anybody here have a road map for achieving finally a condition where nuclear pays for itself, in effect it doesn't come to the government for hand outs?
For the subsidy problem, it could be divided in two parts: government guarantees (which only have an option value) and direct cash handouts. France has had a viable nuclear programme with the former but without the latter. As a state owned outfit EDF has been able to borrow at the sovereign interest rate because of the guarantee. It has been profitable since the end of the 70s and has repaid its debt linked to the nuclear programme (or most of it since the last reactors started by the end of the 90s). The price of electricity has been competitive even at the end of the 90s with oil below $10/barrel. Now, with the barrel around $100, it's the cheapest in western europe, both for industrial and retail customers.
The Court des comptes (the french government auditing body) has published a report (english summary), whose conclusion can be summarized as: no hidden costs apart from the question of insurance.
So to the question, when would be the nuclear industry a self sufficient? The answer could be: yesterday in some parts of the world. Those are the parts without coal, gas, oil and sufficient hydro power.
Now, the problem with new nuclear builds are the costs of GenIII plants which require high capacity factors to make them pay for themselves with today's price of power (when on budget). The other problem is subsidization of other means of production (ie: onshore wind) which lower the market price while not suffering any of it (because of the subsidy).Proteos, as you seem to suggest with higher nuclear power costs the question of French self-subsidy might have to be revisted. Here they do. |
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on May 1, 2012 0:57:57 GMT 9.5
France sells the nuclear electricity for far more when they export it and they are the largest electricity exporter in the world.
What their puny little wind industry failed to point out is that wind only looks good when you ignore the need to back it up, then it starts to look like methane.
|
|
|
|
Post by proteos on May 1, 2012 3:36:46 GMT 9.5
Proteos, as you seem to suggest with higher nuclear power costs the question of French self-subsidy might have to be revisted. Here they do. The piece you quote is spurious. First of all, I think we should compare the cost of nuclear power to the market price, for example, a weighted average of the spot price to see if it's a money making undertaking. One can find such an estimate by looking at the subsidies handed out to renewables: the subsidy is the difference between the average spot price and the mandated price. One finds in official documents that it is about ¤57/MWh. So in fact old nuclear is collecting a rent from this point of view. The price of ¤42/MWh is a government mandated price to allow competitors to appear on the distribution market: because EDF prices have risen much slower than fossil fuel prices, and are pretty much disconnected from them, no one has an interest to discard the regulated contracts. This is an EU mandated policy (I do not know what improvement can be expected from this). As for wind, the mandated price is ¤82/MWh for onshore. The LCoE of Flamanville's EPR is estimated by EDF today to be between ¤70 and 90/MWh... So it's a comparable price, except that one is dispatchable. There are very few spots in France where wind can reach ¤60/MWh and below. If and when that becomes a generality, it could be time for a rethink. In the meantime, the 2000s have seen an increase in the price of wind turbines... |
|
|
|
Post by sod on May 1, 2012 6:14:44 GMT 9.5
As for wind, the mandated price is ¤82/MWh for onshore. The LCoE of Flamanville's EPR is estimated by EDF today to be between ¤70 and 90/MWh... So it's a comparable price, except that one is dispatchable. There are very few spots in France where wind can reach ¤60/MWh and below. If and when that becomes a generality, it could be time for a rethink. In the meantime, the 2000s have seen an increase in the price of wind turbines... there are strong indications that the stable price of wind power is caused by massive demand. (similar stuff happens with solar) www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2011/02/oversupply-causes-drop-in-wind-turbine-pricesThe situation is completely different with nuclear power. i think that alternative energy is becoming a big problem for nuclear. during the 10 years it takes to build a nuclear power plant, a region can go up from 0% to 10% wind power. life time calculations of a nuclear power plant have to factor in 30% wind scenarios, which means that wind will periodically provide 100% of electricity needed. solar is even worse, as it kills the peak price market. |
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on May 1, 2012 7:05:09 GMT 9.5
The situation is completely different with nuclear power. i think that alternative energy is becoming a big problem for nuclear. The real problem though is that wind farms can make nuclear uneconomical despite not actually doing anything to solve global warming, getting rid of wind subsidies would help (or at least not providing any new. during the 10 years it takes to build a nuclear power plant, So you don't actually know how long it takes to build a nuclear reactor? Shippingport the first US power reactor started construction in 1954 and was commissioned in 1958 (having already generated power in 1957) and there are others which took only 3 years to build (without cutting corners I might add). SMRs are likely to be even quicker to build (a few weeks for site preparation, airlift the factory built modules in, stick them together, test them, should be possible to have a nuclear power plant on the grid in less time than the construction of a wind farm). The Camp Century reactor was assembled from parts bought across the ice in only seventy seven days. I personally expect that well-designed SMRs could go from factory floor to grid in only a few weeks. a region can go up from 0% to 10% wind power. life time calculations of a nuclear power plant have to factor in 30% wind scenarios, They would have to factor in 30% wind scenarios if it were possible to get 30% of electricity from wind, that is yet to be shown (even Denmark is only at about 20% and it's already causing them problems). If it weren't for subsidies and feed in tariffs the power companies wouldn't be touching wind and solar. which means that wind will periodically provide 100% of electricity needed. It also means that you need 100% spinning reserve, that is not in any way efficient. solar is even worse, as it kills the peak price market. Only because it is heavily subsided and the utilities are required to buy it whether they want to or not (and then they have to keep extra spinning reserve to deal with clouds coming in). |
|
|
|
Post by proteos on May 1, 2012 17:21:05 GMT 9.5
there are strong indications that the stable price of wind power is caused by massive demand. (similar stuff happens with solar) Don't you find that it is contradictory with the often heard claim that prices go down as we build more wind turbines? If prices hold firm when demand is high, the cost of wind power will never go down as claimed! The situation is completely different with nuclear power. i think that alternative energy is becoming a big problem for nuclear. The main problem I see are the subsidies handed out to the intermittent renewables. Like nuclear, those are facilities that need a big investment but have low marginal costs. It is thus a more risky business than the gas plants. By handing out subsidies, governments are removing the risk of investing in renewables and guaranteeing the yield of the investment. And indeed, their intermittency is causing a problem for nuclear power which must have a high capacity factor to be a money making business. Which also means that only fossil fuels can economically fill the gap. Thus, wind can only reduce carbon emissions by roughly 1/3 in the electricity sector with today's tech. And only in an electricity sector which is completely based on fossil fuels: in France, it is likely that wind power could in fact increase emissions. That's very far from what is needed. the during the 10 years it takes to build a nuclear power plant, The chinese EPRs are on track to be delivered 4 years after the start of construction works. I do not see why we can't do it in Europe or the US. life time calculations of a nuclear power plant have to factor in 30% wind scenarios, which means that wind will periodically provide 100% of electricity needed. If a goal to reach is to eliminate most carbon emissions, any scenario has to include a healthy chunk of zero carbon production, not just 1/3. So maybe high wind scenarios should also include knock on effects. solar is even worse, as it kills the peak price market. Not north of the 45th parallel. And it's not like the lands north of it are deserts! |
|
|
|
Post by jagdish on May 2, 2012 4:23:12 GMT 9.5
In India, nuclear power is more economical than coal @ more than 1000km from the pithead. Even overseas, the cost will be $1700/kW for PHWR. nextbigfuture.com/2012/05/india-can-build-nuclear-reactors-for.html Import of uranium is more beneficial from Australia to India. Nuclear from Indian PHWR would be self-sustaining in Australia or Indonesia. |
|
|
|
Post by sod on May 2, 2012 5:30:59 GMT 9.5
I disagree with a lot of your replies! Denmark got 24% of domestic electricity production in 2011. the wind power increased by about a factor of 10 over 12 years. so the majority of the wind turbines generating that power were not even planned 12 years ago. euobserver.com/1021/115172in contrast, it takes about this amount of time to get a nuclear power plant from plan to reality. I think your construction times are optimistic (3 years seems to be the regular time overrun, not the construction time..) But even if we accept short 4-6 years construction times, the time from planning to electricity production will be closer to my 10 years than to 3! but in that time, countries can do what Denmark did before and move above 20% wind pretty easily! onshore wind is competitive and will be maxed out in most countries, even with little government support. offshore wind is getting government support in many places, as it offers huge potentials in building and selling technology. many western countries have a target above 20% renewables and the majority will be wind. so whether we like it or not, we will have to factor it into economic calculations for nuclear plants. even if they are build faster than 10 years, they will still have to deal with high wind penetration during the vital early years of electricity production. (paying back debts..) so far, i have simply not read a lot about this aspect of nuclear economics! and as i said above, i don t think that subsidies are important for that development. if we cut back subsidies for wind, there would be very few reasons to keep them for nuclear. i don t think that nuclear power would profit from a "no subsidies" scenario... |
|
|
|
Post by sod on May 2, 2012 5:46:15 GMT 9.5
Don't you find that it is contradictory with the often heard claim that prices go down as we build more wind turbines? If prices hold firm when demand is high, the cost of wind power will never go down as claimed! The main problem I see are the subsidies handed out to the intermittent renewables. Like nuclear, those are facilities that need a big investment but have low marginal costs. It is thus a more risky business than the gas plants. By handing out subsidies, governments are removing the risk of investing in renewables and guaranteeing the yield of the investment. And indeed, their intermittency is causing a problem for nuclear power which must have a high capacity factor to be a money making business. Which also means that only fossil fuels can economically fill the gap. Thus, wind can only reduce carbon emissions by roughly 1/3 in the electricity sector with today's tech. And only in an electricity sector which is completely based on fossil fuels: in France, it is likely that wind power could in fact increase emissions. That's very far from what is needed. Not north of the 45th parallel. And it's not like the lands north of it are deserts! 1. high demand can keep prices high, even while production gets cheaper. This is pretty common. (and actually subsidies could be a real problem with this, as suppliers have little reason to sell much cheaper than what gives reasonable profits under a feed-in tarif..) 2. i agree with the analysis. there is a risk of gas plants filling gaps left by high penetration of wind/solar in the short term. the question is, can new nuclear plants compete or not? 3. the 45th parallel is below many of the best wine regions in Europe. Many people will spend their holidays this summer at the sea in places above it. Germany has 2% solar power now and this will be much more on a summer afternoon. This is ruining electricity prices and demand for sellers of nuclear power. and again, roof top solar might be a cost parity if you use your own electricity... |
|
|
|
Post by proteos on May 2, 2012 6:23:40 GMT 9.5
in contrast, it takes about this amount of time to get a nuclear power plant from plan to reality. I think your construction times are optimistic (3 years seems to be the regular time overrun, not the construction time..) But even if we accept short 4-6 years construction times, the time from planning to electricity production will be closer to my 10 years than to 3! There can not always be slipping schedules & cost overruns if nuclear is to be a serious business. The main problem with nuclear new builds is the lack of experience following the end of most programmes in the 90s. Now, only east asian countries (China, Taiwan, South Korea) have a real live experience in building nuclear plants. And in China, construction works are on time. As for planning times, only roof top solar is exempt from this. You don't plop down a wind turbine, let alone a big farm, like that in western Europe: there are zoning laws! I grant you that building one wind turbine will get you less time consumed than finding a brand new construction site. But most new builds in rich countries are next to old reactors. onshore wind is competitive and will be maxed out in most countries, even with little government support. Yes and no. Yes, its LCoE is close to other means of production in many places. But no: its LCoE is often below the average spot price, and it lowers the spot price because the marginal price is 0! And that's a problem for every new build, including fossil fuel plants. The other problem of onshore wind is the neighbors: you need vast swathes of land to get a serious portion of electricity production. As opposition mounts, it gets more difficult to find new sites. That's one of the reasons why the Danes now want more offshore wind. offshore wind is getting government support in many places, as it offers huge potentials in building and selling technology. many western countries have a target above 20% renewables and the majority will be wind. If everyone rushes into offshore wind, there are going to be losers. And the price is sky high: in France, the price is between ¤240 and 270/MWh. My guess is also that some countries will undershoot their renewables goals. Cases in point are the UK and France. so far, i have simply not read a lot about this aspect of nuclear economics! So far, the answer is simple: if the capacity factor is below 70% or so, gas will be more competitive in most places. if we cut back subsidies for wind, there would be very few reasons to keep them for nuclear. i don t think that nuclear power would profit from a "no subsidies" scenario... I beg to differ. The main problem of the EU policy is that it uses two contradictory tools. The first tool is the ETS, which can put a price on carbon, and does not pick winners. The 2d tool is the renewables target, which pick a winner: wind, and a recipient for most subsidies: solar PV. Both tools are contradictory: building more renewables will prevent the ETS price from rising until we reach the 30% intermittent renewables wall. And besides, there is no visibilty for the ETS price. It's impossible to base investment decisions on this, especially for infrastructures which last 40 years (gas plants) or more (new nuclear is planned for 60 years). The first thing I would do is eliminate the renewable targets (and subsidy) and set a minimum price for the ETS auctions (to take place from 2013 onwards), increasing each year up to 2050: eg 13¤/t for 2013, 14¤/t for 2014, etc. This could help setting a more level playing field for all technologies and allow some long term planning. |
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on May 2, 2012 6:34:31 GMT 9.5
I disagree with a lot of your replies! You have the right to be wrong if you wish. :-p in contrast, it takes about this amount of time [≈12 years ] to get a nuclear power plant from plan to reality. I think your construction times are optimistic (3 years seems to be the regular time overrun, not the construction time..) But even if we accept short 4-6 years construction times, the time from planning to electricity production will be closer to my 10 years than to 3! The time of 3 years from construction start to plant in operation is what has actually happened so it has been shown to be possible (I personally think that SMRs could take only a matter of weeks to go from start of site preparation to generating power). but in that time, countries can do what Denmark did before and move above 20% wind pretty easily! If their grids can handle it, that has yet to be proven (it is worth noting that Denmark is connected to a much larger European grid thereby allowing them to use their neighbours hydro to back up their wind turbines (and also meaning that actual wind penetration on the grid they are connected to is significantly less than 20%)). Then there's the fact that Denmark has very expensive electricity, not something you'd expect if wind were competitive (though admittedly Denmark's wind turbines are some of the worst performers in Europe, which on the whole has inferior wind turbine performance to the US and Australia). onshore wind is competitive and will be maxed out in most countries, even with little government support. Onshore wind is only competitive if you heavily subsidise it and require the power companies to buy it whether they want it or not. It also can't power many countries (Europe simply doesn't have enough wind). offshore wind is getting government support in many places, More straws for those who don't like nuclear to cling to. as it offers huge potentials in building and selling technology. At least until the renewable energy bubble bursts. many western countries have a target above 20% renewables and the majority will be wind. You're assuming those targets will actually be met (they are set to long after the people who set them will be gone from politics for a reason). so whether we like it or not, we will have to factor it into economic calculations for nuclear plants. Yes, even though wind probably won't even help us solve global warming it'll still be able to hurt the one thing which can. even if they are build faster than 10 years, If we want them enough we'll be able to get them built within three years and probably quicker once we regain experience (and we'd be building the same design over and over). they will still have to deal with high wind penetration during the vital early years of electricity production. (paying back debts..) That'll only be a problem while government is subsiding wind, remove the subsidies and wind will cease to cause problems (though it may be harder to remove subsidies for currently operating wind farms, not making the problem worse would still be a good step). and as i said above, i don t think that subsidies are important for that development. if we cut back subsidies for wind, there would be very few reasons to keep them for nuclear. Nuclear is on the whole probably being anti-subsided (i.e. the costs added by over-regulation are more than any subsidies given to it). i don t think that nuclear power would profit from a "no subsidies" scenario... Nuclear would probably end up dominating if all energy subsidies were removed (this includes the subsidies to fossil fuels, especially the part about them being allowed to just dump all that CO 2 directly into the atmosphere), it is already the cheapest carbon-neutral energy source. |
|
|
|
Post by proteos on May 2, 2012 6:36:38 GMT 9.5
Not north of the 45th parallel. And it's not like the lands north of it are deserts! 3. the 45th parallel is below many of the best wine regions in Europe. Many people will spend their holidays this summer at the sea in places above it. Germany has 2% solar power now and this will be much more on a summer afternoon. This is ruining electricity prices and demand for sellers of nuclear power. and again, roof top solar might be a cost parity if you use your own electricity... Solar PV is positively correlated with demand where air conditionning is widespread. North of the 45th parallel, air conditionning is pretty much non existent, so there is no peak demand in summer because there is no demand for cool air. Solar PV may be ruining electricity generation in summer, but it's not linked to peak demand. In fact solar PV is somehow ruining the economical model of baseload generation and receive a lot of money for that. Here in France the average price for solar PV is forcast to be 487¤/MWh. The french state is still accepting offers in call for tenders at 229¤/MWh for builds >100kW. Grid parity for retail customers is more like 120¤/MWh here. And if you sell it on the grid (consuming 100% of your own PV installation may not be so easy if you are not home every day at noon) it's below 60¤/MWh. |
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on May 2, 2012 7:19:44 GMT 9.5
What is more likely hurting nuclear in Germany is extra taxes imposed because they are alleged to be too profitable (the proceeds go to renewable energy).
|
|
|
|
Post by davidm on May 17, 2012 22:24:08 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on May 18, 2012 8:46:32 GMT 9.5
Never mind that the nuclear accident (as opposed to what the earthquake did) only cost the write-off of 4 reactors which is not even close to 100 billion (the over-reaction may well have cost that much, but the blame for that belongs not to the nuclear industry but to the anti-nuclear industry (yes, those groups which oppose nuclear power are highly profitable)).
Oh and government would be on the hook just as much if a hydro dam burst.
|
|
|
|
Post by sod on May 18, 2012 22:47:58 GMT 9.5
Never mind that the nuclear accident (as opposed to what the earthquake did) only cost the write-off of 4 reactors which is not even close to 100 billion (the over-reaction may well have cost that much, but the blame for that belongs not to the nuclear industry but to the anti-nuclear industry (yes, those groups which oppose nuclear power are highly profitable)). Oh and government would be on the hook just as much if a hydro dam burst. i am convinced that such optimistic views don t help nuclear energy. the cost is not only the "write-off" of 4 reactors. none of the 6 daichi reactors will go back online. Plans for daichi 7 and 8 have been stopped and i am pretty sure that even fukushima daini (with another 4 reactors!) will not go back into service (at the very least not within years) the 4 melt down reactors also have to be costly decommissioned. then there is the nuclear contamination of an enormous amount of land and beach. (this is a real problem and not something that is made up!) at the end we will see that $100 bn was an optimistic guess of the real cost! the hydro dam example is getting boring as well. the danger is not similar. a dam failure might kill more people directly, but it will not contaminate land. apart from that, being on hook for one problem isn t a good reason to accept responsibility for another one! MODERATOR
Without references (which, as with BNC, are required on BNCDF) to back up your assertions, you are indeed,trolling. I recall the same practice got you placed on permanent moderation on BNC. Please read the Comments Policy and abide by it. Thankyou. |
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on May 19, 2012 10:04:38 GMT 9.5
i am convinced that such optimistic views don t help nuclear energy. Regardless of your attempt at concern trolling it is the truth. the cost is not only the "write-off" of 4 reactors. none of the 6 daichi reactors will go back online. Plans for daichi 7 and 8 have been stopped and i am pretty sure that even fukushima daini (with another 4 reactors!) will not go back into service (at the very least not within years) Units 5 and 6 never starting back up (and any cancellation of 7 and 8) along with any other plants shutting down will not be a cost of a nuclear accident but of the anti-nuclear movement being listened to. the 4 melt down reactors also have to be costly decommissioned. They would've eventually needed decommissioning anyway. then there is the nuclear contamination of an enormous amount of land and beach. (this is a real problem and not something that is made up!) Never mind that none of the contamination is actually dangerous (for anyone). The only thing released that could cause problems was radio-iodine and that's all decayed away to nothingness. at the end we will see that $100 bn was an optimistic guess of the real cost! I wouldn't be surprised if the anti-nuclear movement ends up costing Japan more than a trillion. the hydro dam example is getting boring as well. the danger is not similar. a dam failure might kill more people directly, but it will not contaminate land. No, it'll just wash away everything to the point at which there's nothing left there (which is much worse than a little bit of extra radiation that isn't even at harmful levels). Lives lost per unit of energy produced is the metric you use when determining the safety of power sources, anything else is just an attempt to distract you. apart from that, being on hook for one problem isn t a good reason to accept responsibility for another one! It's good reason to be willing to accept responsibility for a lesser problem. |
|
|
|
Post by sod on May 20, 2012 19:02:42 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
|
Post by sod on May 21, 2012 0:52:49 GMT 9.5
|
|
but an economics friend of mine assures me that there are economic tools for this within the existing arrangements. He was rather chuffed to find out old Robert Solow had even developed some of the concepts.
