Why is Nuclear Energy So Expensive?

quake. I started with the number for North Anna which is one of the least likely, around 1 in 70,000. Factor in the useful life of the reactor which presently stands at 70 years and now it's 1 in 1,000. There are 100 such reactors in the US, most of which have a worse risk factor and you get 1 in 10 approximately. Not high math.

You are such a whiner. The numbers are from the NRC. If you want details, google or ask the NRC. I'm tired of discussing this with you. You can't even trim a post.

--

  Rick C. 

  +-+ Get 2,000 miles of free Supercharging 
  +-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

er facilities much longer. It just seems like the cost and risks are unten able

n.

ided?

demonstration HTGR is about US$5,000/kW ? about twice the initial c ost estimates."

1.2x10^5 kWh,

ource is available cheaper.

's on top of the many other ...

itude isn't

No, it's not a show stopper. There are plenty of applications for expensiv e energy. Various militaries use nuclear power generation. They aren't wo rried about the cost. For commercial power generation having a $0.04 per k Wh base cost before operating and other costs are added in is *clearly* cos t prohibitive when you can produce electricity for $0.04 per kWh in total b y other means.

Interesting that you are only responding to the Chinese cost estimates and ignoring the rest of the numbers I provided from the massively overrun proj ects in the EU and US that I also posted.

What do you think will be the rate of return on the billions of dollars spe nt on the failed reactor project in South Carolina?

ted when the projects were started.

ing any known cause

Not sure what you are trying to say. When you ask if I expect overruns "no w"... they have happened... is that "now" enough for you? What do you mean ?

xists because of a massively overrun project in South Carolina? There is n o longer a Westinghouse nuclear reactor company.

known cause that

What does a startup company like Solyndra have to do with building nuclear power plants???

Yes, indeed. Unfortunately literally every commercial nuclear project in t he western world in the last 20 years has had massive schedule delays and c ost overruns. This is what we like to call "a clue" that we can't seem to build commercial nuclear power plants on schedule and under budget.

In contrast, many other power projects, like solar and wind farms seem to b e easy to build on schedule, under budget and produce the expected results. They also seem to be getting cheaper and cheaper to build while nuclear s eems to be getting more and more expensive.

--

  Rick C. 

  ++- Get 2,000 miles of free Supercharging 
  ++- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

The cooling systems are pretty vulnerable to e.g. drone attack. In a decade or so someone sitting a thousand miles away will be able to fly a quiet $5,000 drone in three feet off the ground and drop a 100 lbs of RDX right up the thing's goddamn tailpipe.

If they can do it to an oil refinery like in Saudi Arabia....they had the best US-made air defense early warning system ten billion dollars could buy. junk

Or maybe tomorrow it's clearly possible right now.

ote:

ar

d

nuclear

le trying

stry

ing

).

gulations were put in place by essentially a-political people who were inte rested in avoiding more Chernobyls, Fukushima's and Three Mile Islands.

moved civilisation back into caves isn't entirely clear. We moved out of c aves long before nuclear power was an option, and wind and solar power - an d fair bit of grid-scale battery storage - seem perfectly capable of keepin g us out of the caves in future.

information back whenever it got programmed, but this is fairly recent deni alist propaganda of a particularly silly sort.

power

ell

hic

a

d like you to believe. I was amazed when I ran the numbers and found the r isk of core damage with a release of radiation was 1 in 10 across the US in dustry over the lifetime of the reactors FROM EARTHQUAKE ALONE! That isn't even the largest of the different sources of risk.

hat

US

ing

.

thquake. I started with the number for North Anna which is one of the leas t likely, around 1 in 70,000. Factor in the useful life of the reactor whi ch presently stands at 70 years and now it's 1 in 1,000. There are 100 suc h reactors in the US, most of which have a worse risk factor and you get 1 in 10 approximately. Not high math.

nd severity of anticipated earthquakes to get the probability down to the n ominal value of 1 in 70,000... most of the time. So smaller earthquake lik ely, less earthquake resistance, similar odds, unless they aren't.

e probability of something going wrong with the reactor itself was an even more likely event. So the ultimate odds are at best 1 in 5. You wouldn't even drive your car if the odds of a serious accident were 1 in 5.

esign and build. To be safe they have to be designed so much better and to account for so many more problems than most anything we make.

e very happy billing their customers for half a billion dollars obtaining a facility approval that will likely never be built.

ted to be 1-in-10,000 each year" which is the worst earthquake rating in th e US even though this is considered acceptable. NYC is just 25 miles downw ind and in 2001, "During the September 11 attacks, American Airlines Flight 11 flew near the Indian Point Energy Center en route to the World Trade Ce nter. Mohamed Atta, one of the 9/11 hijackers/plotters, had considered nucl ear facilities for targeting in a terrorist attack." Imagine how much wors e the results would have been if this has been the target of one of the pla nes.

tand the impact of an airplane, consider they don't need to attack the vess el itself, only the cooling system which is outside the containment vessel. Knock that out with not even too large an airplane and the reactor will m elt down. Given enough damage to the cooling system and the containment ve ssel will leak radiation through the cooling channels or even other means a s is presently happening at Fukushima. The difference is that at Fukushima they are dumping radioactive water into the Pacific ocean. At Indian Poin t they would be dumping it into the Hudson river that runs right through NY C.

approval of these two reactors and shut them down by 2021. The plans to r eplace this energy include the 650 MW gas generator at Wawayanda, New York and transmission lines from other areas. Environmentalists are calling for efforts to replace this capacity "by renewable energy, combined with conse rvation measures and improvements to the efficiency of the electrical grid. "

heir own spin on everything in a way that makes them feel good. For me the more I look at nuclear power, the more issues I find and the more I don't like it. These are real issues that everyone should be aware of. But many people don't want to learn from the mistakes that others have made. So we will repeat the same mistakes. Complacency is a big one. Hubris is anoth er. They both can lead to nemesis.

The North Anna nuclear facility is right on a public lake. Anyone could fl y a drone from a half mile away and do what you are talking about and not e ven get caught. Why do you say "in a decade"? I don't know what drones yo u can get that would carry 100 lbs of anything though. Still, I think a sm aller amount of a high explosive would do serious damage to the cooling sys tem, no? I suppose they might jam a drone if it was remotely controlled. Anything else would need to be pretty sophisticated.

--

  Rick C. 

  +++ Get 2,000 miles of free Supercharging 
  +++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

Of course none of that blather has anything to do with my valid point. And you'd have to be a real loon to deny that the global warming folks are predicting a climate catastrophe. There is no requirement that a catastrophe has to be sudden.

ces of an accident separately due to a single cause, at a single reactor fo r a single year. Those numbers appears to be very conservative being 1 in some tens of thousands. But when you combine even just the number of react ors and number of years the results drop to 1 in 10!!!

ving

years, ~70. The 1 in 70,000 number is for one reactor for one year due to an earthquake.... so over all reactors in the US around 1 in 10 over their lifetimes due to earthquake.

I'm waiting to read what's behind the numbers you started with. For example, what constitutes a "release of radiation"? Is that a popcorn fart or Chernobyl? Who's numbers are theses, GE or GreenPeace?

ways an accident can occur and you get some very disturbing results indeed .

t likely cause of radiation release from the core. Loss of coolant is the most likely as estimated by the NRC.

Loss of coolant would be the primary means by which an earthquake would cause the release, so again, sounds like you're double dipping.

You will need to google that to get the exact terminology. The web page w here I was reading this a few months ago was making the point that the eart hquake numbers are not the worst to worry about.

erences. It's late and you can do a little leg work too instead of just sa ying I'm wrong about everything when you didn't even read what I've written . If you really want to know the facts, please do some research on your ow n. Otherwise please just don't respond to me. Ok?

I see, it was months ago, don't have the numbers now, don't know what they were based on, and don't raise any doubts.

ROFL

have you believe there was virtually no chance this could have happened, th at it was unforeseeable, yet it did happen. We look back with 20/20 hindsi ght and say it was inevitable.

ause it was found that the procedure for installing the head gaskets was fa ulty. That procedure was a single point of failure for every generator and was not discovered until the plant was 40 years old during an emergency. What if every generator had failed because of a bad head gasket installatio n?

he

ming

ear power.

Not at all. I'm simply pointing out how hypocritical the global warming folks are who say a global disaster of epic proportions is coming unless we do something immediately, yet most of the same folks won't use readily available nuclear power which we could deploy quickly to help avoid the global disaster.

thquake. I started with the number for North Anna which is one of the leas t likely, around 1 in 70,000. Factor in the useful life of the reactor whi ch presently stands at 70 years and now it's 1 in 1,000. There are 100 suc h reactors in the US, most of which have a worse risk factor and you get 1 in 10 approximately. Not high math.

s?

s, google or ask the NRC. I'm tired of discussing this with you. You can' t even trim a post.

You make much money from all that Tesla spamming?

ower facilities much longer. It just seems like the cost and risks are unt enable

pin.

ected when the projects were started.

eeing any known cause

now"... they have happened... is that "now" enough for you? What do you me an?

It's not clear that the 'nuclear power project' having an overrun is relate d to its being nuclear, or power-related, or some odd principles of project e stimation or management.

So, it's illogical to project those issues onto every other 'nuclear power project', because no causation is established. Does this overrun scenario apply to all powe r projects?

ars has had massive schedule delays and cost overruns. This is what we lik e to call "a clue" that we can't seem to build commercial nuclear power pla nts on schedule and under budget.

But, I've already pointed out that nuclear power plants for submarines ARE made on schedule, and without such fuss as you suggest. There may be something scary about commercial failure, but it doesn't follow the 'nuclear power' component everywhere.

A part-failed initiative (WPPSS) of years ago had management (rush four bui lds in parallel instead of serially), financing (bonds in default because of nonauthoritative issua nce), and technical problems (that literally were set in concrete and hard to work around), The one plant that they finished, though, generates power economically.

be easy to build on schedule, under budget and produce the expected result s.

Is that so? I've heard that the long-term viability of some wind units are in doubt because of the extended maintenance requirements (and parts availability).

I qualified my statement afterward

I don't know what drones you can get that would carry 100 lbs of anything though. Still, I think a smaller amount of a high explosive would do serious damage to the cooling system, no? I suppose they might jam a drone if it was remotely controlled. Anything else would need to be pretty sophisticated.

Yay, one more safety system that has to work more-or-less perfectly

power facilities much longer. It just seems like the cost and risks are u ntenable

spin.

xpected when the projects were started.

seeing any known cause

"now"... they have happened... is that "now" enough for you? What do you mean?

ted

estimation or management.

r project', because

wer projects?

IDK, but it sure applies to almost all govt projects and we don't see the libs complaining about that, saying that we need to stop public projects or welfare programs, because the cost turned out to be way higher than projected. They want even more of those, go figure. And many of those programs were total failures, not just cost over runs.

years has had massive schedule delays and cost overruns. This is what we l ike to call "a clue" that we can't seem to build commercial nuclear power p lants on schedule and under budget.

E made on schedule,

t commercial

uilds in parallel instead

uance), and technical

The one

to be easy to build on schedule, under budget and produce the expected resu lts.

Like Solyndra and so many other solar bankruptcies and failures. I guess we should punt on that too?

re in doubt because of the

the

e other

warming evil to be expected.

In English, there is. In some dialects of English this may be missed by les s educated speakers.

Unrestrained anthropogenic global warming is already making certain well-kn own catastrophic events more frequent and more catastrophic - the hurricane that hit Japan a couple of days ago is a fairly obvious case in point, and eastern Australia has a had very early start to the bushfire season with 4

0-odd homes destroyed and twp people killed.

A "climate catastrophe" would have to affect an area large enough to have a "climate" and over that kind of area the change is going to be progressive .

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Solyndra failed because the technology it used wasn't good enough.

Trader4 won't be able to list the "many other solar bankruptcies and failures" because he makes a habit of misunderstanding what he encounters and sees what he wants to see when his source doesn't actually support that interpretation.

Trader4's guesses are a trifle predictable.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

power facilities much longer. It just seems like the cost and risks are u ntenable

spin.

xpected when the projects were started.

seeing any known cause

"now"... they have happened... is that "now" enough for you? What do you mean?

ted

estimation or management.

r project', because

wer projects?

Correlation is not causation... but...

When 100% of civilian nuclear power plant projects in the last 20 years are way past schedule and very over budget even to the point that in the last six months the remaining schedule gets extended by six more months, repeate dly on some projects, clearly there is a common thread.

I don't believe anyone has found the smoking gun (so to speak) connecting t obacco use to cancer. Yet we accept the connection.

Do you?

years has had massive schedule delays and cost overruns. This is what we l ike to call "a clue" that we can't seem to build commercial nuclear power p lants on schedule and under budget.

E made on schedule,

t commercial

So??? What is your point? We are discussing civilian nuclear power plants .

uilds in parallel instead

uance), and technical

The one

So you see this one plant as a success story??? This is the quintessential example of why civilian nuclear power plants are so very difficult to buil d. Out of five reactors, they were only able to bring one reactor online a nd at a cost of billions of dollars spent that produced zero electricity. What that money factored into the 2.3 cents per kWh cost cited? Sure, if y ou ignore the massive cost and risk of building a civilian nuclear power pl ant the remaining costs are not so high. But who will actually try to buil d such a plant if there is only a 1 in five chance of the reactor ever comi ng online?

to be easy to build on schedule, under budget and produce the expected resu lts.

re in doubt because of the

Parts availability??? I have a hard time imagining a company not being wil ling to make and sell parts when that is typically more profitable than mak ing and selling the actual product.

My understanding is that there are more kW of wind production in most count ries than solar, but solar is coming on strong in the US. There are farms in planning now that are comparable in capacity to other power plants such as fossil fuel and nuclear.

It will be interesting to see the combined adoption of EVs and solar power generation. While solar has issues with matching the power consumption cur ve in most locations EVs are very flexible in being charged and so can be p aired with solar very easily. Solar has one issue in that the generation i s nearly free other than the fixed costs of amortization of the capital. S o in the end solar energy may be sold on a subscription plan like cell phon e data. You pay for X number of kWh each week or month and you can use up to that amount to charge your EV during the solar generating periods. If y ou don't use that much the capacity has gone to waste but is paid for by yo ur subscription. If you need more you pay prevailing rates which would be higher since it is likely fossil fuel or nuke based.

Since most people drive about the same number of miles most weeks this woul d work for them fairly well giving them the significantly lower rates of so lar power while providing the investors of a reasonable rate of return. Of course I am assuming this is in five or ten years when EVs are common and solar is even cheaper than it is now. Yes, energy can be on a subscription like cell phone data. That could work.

--

  Rick C. 

  ---- Get 2,000 miles of free Supercharging 
  ---- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

a

d fly a drone from a half mile away and do what you are talking about and n ot even get caught. Why do you say "in a decade"?

What's the name of the shipboard missile defense system that lays out a bla nket of thousands of bullets in a few seconds? Phalanx I believe. They ca n deploy that at nuke plants. A little collateral damage isn't too much to pay so our nuclear plants can remain safe. Then we can be safe from drone s up to the last moment.

--

  Rick C. 

  ---+ Get 2,000 miles of free Supercharging 
  ---+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

What if the manufacturer goes bankrupt or sold to a competitor ?

Such events may become more common when the subsidies to wind and solar are finally removed and the wind operators have to work with commercial terms. This means for instance that the price obtainable varies daily, especially if there are gross overproduction during some days. If operators can't afford expensive repairs but are forced to shut down a turbine, this will also reduce the maintenance money to the wind turbine manufacturer.

:

re way past schedule and very over budget even to the point that in the las t six months the remaining schedule gets extended by six more months, repea tedly on some projects, clearly there is a common thread.

tobacco use to cancer.

There is no nice simple single connection, but tobacco smoke is lousy with carcinogenic tars, and one the effects of smoking is to disable the cilia t hat push these tars, fine particulates from diesel exhaust and a bunch of o ther crap up out of the lungs where they can get cough out in lumps of dir ty mucus.

Back when I was younger, and collected stats to try to frighten my father o ut of smoking, I noticed that smoking in Australia where the air used to f airly clean, gave you about the same chance of lung cancer as not smoking i n the UK (where it wasn't). Smoking in the UK was much more dangerous.

He'd probably need to know more about why they got expensive before he'd ac tually accept the connection.

Establishing correlation is much easier than establishing causation, and sk imping on that part of the job isn't a good idea.

0 years has had massive schedule delays and cost overruns. This is what we like to call "a clue" that we can't seem to build commercial nuclear power plants on schedule and under budget.

ARE made on schedule, and without such fuss as you suggest. There may be something scary about commercial failure, but it doesn't follow the 'nuclea r power' component everywhere.

ts.

builds in parallel instead of serially), financing (bonds in default becau se of nonauthoritative issuance), and technical problems (that literally we re set in concrete and hard to work around), The one plant that they fin ished, though, generates power economically.

al example of why civilian nuclear power plants are so very difficult to bu ild. Out of five reactors, they were only able to bring one reactor online and at a cost of billions of dollars spent that produced zero electricity. What that money factored into the 2.3 cents per kWh cost cited? Sure, if you ignore the massive cost and risk of building a civilian nuclear power plant the remaining costs are not so high. But who will actually try to bu ild such a plant if there is only a 1 in five chance of the reactor ever co ming online?

m to be easy to build on schedule, under budget and produce the expected re sults.

are in doubt because of the extended maintenance requirements (and parts a vailability).

illing to make and sell parts when that is typically more profitable than m aking and selling the actual product.

ntries than solar, but solar is coming on strong in the US. There are farm s in planning now that are comparable in capacity to other power plants suc h as fossil fuel and nuclear.

r generation.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 at 4:46:04 PM UTC+11, snipped-for-privacy@downunder.com w rote:

em to be easy to build on schedule, under budget and produce the expected r esults.

s are in doubt because of the

willing to make and sell parts when that is typically more profitable than making and selling the actual product.

The competitor can make just as much money out of getting spare parts made as the original firm.

When a manufacturer goes bankrupt, the technical staff with the skills to g et spare parts made quite frequently go into the business of looking after existing customers - to whom they are known.

It's not big business, but it can be a steady and profitable small business .

The subsidies have essentially done their job. Solar cells and wind turbine s are produced in volume - wind turbines aren't such a dramatic demonstrati on of the benefits of large scale production as solar cells, but there are now factories churning them out.

The repairs may be delayed, but if the wind turbine is going to make money on good days after it is repaired, the repair will eventually get done.

Operators who can't afford to keep their machines repaired will get bought out by people who can. They become a commercial opportunity and no-spinnin g windmill blades are obvious from quite a distance.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Really? You think the existential threat to wind farms is the lack of repair components due to buy outs by competitors?

This seems like a serious reach.

Every industry has the same issues. Delivery companies bought a bunch of Chryslers and Chrysler gets bought by Daimler-Benz. Then Daimler-Benz sells it to Fiat. Funny how the companies using Chrysler vehicles are still doing fine.

--

  Rick C. 

  --+- Get 2,000 miles of free Supercharging 
  --+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209