Please share far and wide!

Saturday, December 21, 2013

Simple Strategy, Start Getting Nuclear to Pay Its Real Cost

Nuclear is a stupid technology that entraps the best and brightest into it's lie.    It is also a way to steal from the future, like printing money, or like making pension promises that are just impossible to keep.    They are all theft.

here at the Nuke Pro we have several strategies, one of which is to make nuclear start addressing some of the costs of dealing with the spent fuel.    Of course, with Solar PV now at 3 cents per kWH, and plants like Kewaunee (bought dirt cheap at $280M) and they still can't turn a profit in a market of 14 cents per kWH.   Well the conclusion is obvious, nuke doesn't pay.   And if the new Vogtle ever pull back the moderator rods....and costs $16B, how can that possibly work.     Even will socialized insurance costs.

 But once we get them to start absorbing the real costs of decommissioning, and not just let the plants sit for 60 years, and not just let the spent fuel sit in pools forever.    Then the true cost of nuclear will start to appear.....and the plant closures will rocket forward, as a race to get out gets underway.      

 By the way, we can't just let these old plants sit for 60 years.    WE THE PEOPLE need the infrastructure, as these are the perfect locations to feed in solar farms, molten salt generation, and peaking nat gas generators to smooth out the renewable inputs.     Sorry nuker....suck it up and green field it back to where it was, except of course for the transformers, switchgear, power lines, syncronisers, and various distribution panel equipment that will be so useful for the "Fresh Energy".     And in case it isn't obvious, if the plant sits for 60 years, all these assets will become worthless.

Who is next?    Pilgrim?   Palisades?   Plenty of candidates.     Just pick any Entergy plant and you have a likely target for activist education.      

This is a real job creator, not fake government jobs, not entitlements.   This is work which must be done.   We must get rid of these old plants, and the waste.   Dry Cask everything, now, in about 7 years it can all be done.     And decommission the plants enough that the useful electrical assets can be used for the Fresh Energy.    It is not necessary to completely dismantle the plants now...but there are going to be a lot of nuclear workers who can sure use the work of dismantling.   Why not do it all now?    The average worst radionuclides have half lives of 30 years, so in 60 years, they will have dropped to 25% of where they are now.    So what if a bit more personal protection is needed, what if we need to use a few more robots.    We can't let the risks and the assets sit fallow for 2 generations just to let them be a little less hot.      

$350 B estimate in the article below sounds high.    My high estimate to Dry Cask all the uncasked waste in USA is around $15B.    

Nuke Pro out.   Drop a comment!    


Article below from Power Engineering Mag

Nuclear waste storage could add more than $350bn to cost of nuclear

nuclear pic
An economist said that the disposal and storage of nuclear waste could add up to $350 billion to the price of nuclear power. The declaration was filed as part of the Draft Waste Confidence Generic Environmental Impact Statement process.
According to a declaration filed Dec. 19 with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission by economist Mark Cooper, a senior fellow for economic analysis at the Institute for Energy and the Environment of the Vermont Law School, conservative estimates put the additional costs of at-reactor storage and disposal in a permanent repository between $210 billion to $350 billion. The analysis looks at a range of scenarios, including heavy reliance on on-site reactor storage of nuclear waste in casks and the use of one or more Yucca Mountain-type repositories. The extra cost per unit of nuclear reactor output with nuclear waste storage and disposal would range from $10 to $20 per megawatt-hour of electricity generated by the reactors.
“The economic numbers are crystal clear. Nuclear waste management costs are staggering and should be included in any proper analysis of the economics of nuclear reactors for purposes of issuing new licenses or renewing old ones,” Cooper said. “Given the substantial scale of these costs, any cost-benefit analysis that ‘hides’ such numbers is simply not credible. The fact that some of these costs have been socialized and taken off the shoulders of the industry does not make them any less expensive, burdensome, or relevant in determining the full and true cost of nuclear power.”
Neil Sheehan, public affairs officer with the NRC, said commissioners will evaluate Cooper’s comments along with the hundreds of others received before the report is finalized in 2014.
“With respect to spent fuel storage costs, ratepayers have been contributing a fund to cover those costs for decades,” Sheehan said. “Since no federal repository has yet been opened, numerous plant owners have reached court settlements with DOE to cover ongoing storage costs.”
The Nuclear Energy Institute also said Cooper’s estimates were based on assumptions that used fuel would be stored at nuclear power plants for hundreds of years with no repository.
“It is also unlikely that even with 100 years in storage on sites, fuel would require repackaging, and a disposal price tag that is 3 1/2 times the most recent Yucca Mountain cost estimate,” said Mitch Singer, senior media relations manager with NEI. “And the analysis doesn’t take into account advancing technologies that may well give the nuclear industry more options with possible reduced costs for storage.”

1 comment:

Insightful and Relevant if Irreverent Comments