Why is Nuclear Energy So Expensive?

[Rick C]

I wonder if we (the global "we") will continue to build nuclear power facilities much longer. It just seems like the cost and risks are untenable and the tax payers are picking up the tab for the overruns. From a recent article about US nuclear power.

"The high cost of constructing plants has made it difficult for nuclear power to compete with other energy options in the United States, particularly natural gas. The high cost of nuclear power has led to a significant decline in the construction of new plants—with just one plant, Watts Bar 2, entering commercial operation in the past 20 years.

"In 2017, two South Carolina utilities abandoned two unfinished Westinghouse AP1000 reactors due to difficulties in equipment manufacturing, significant construction delays, and cost overruns—leaving just two other AP1000 reactors under construction, in the state of Georgia. These reactors have also faced delays and cost overruns. The original cost estimate of $14 billion has risen to $23 billion, but construction is proceeding, given the promise of government financial support for these reactors—the first of their kind in the United States."

The European projects aren't faring much better.

The Russian nuclear barge...

"A 2016 OECD Nuclear Energy Agency report said that electricity produced by the plant is expected to cost about US$200/MWh, with the high cost due to large staffing requirements, high fuel costs, and resources required to maintain the barge and coastal infrastructure."

This is around double what consumers pay for electricity in the US.

The Hinkley facility in the UK...

"EDF Energy said the construction cost for Hinkley Point C in Somerset had climbed by between £1.9bn to £2.9bn from the company’s last estimates and is running the risk of further delays.

As a consequence, the total cost has risen from ÂŁ19.5bn to between ÂŁ21.5bn and ÂŁ22.5bn."

Other sites in the EU are not doing much better...

"EDF is using the same reactor design at the Olkiluoto nuclear project in Finland and at Flamanville in France, where costs have also spiralled by billions of euros."

At least at Hinkley the costs will be borne by the shareholders in the plant, not the rate payers... so they say. But in the future...

"The government has confirmed plans for consumers to begin paying for new nuclear reactors before they are built, and for taxpayers to pay a share of any cost overruns or construction delays."

Even in China costs don't seem to be under control...

"According to the World Nuclear Association, China's Institute of Nuclear and New Energy Technology at Tsinghua University expects the cost of a 655 MWe HTGR to be 15-20% more than the cost of a conventional 600 MWe PWR.3

A 2016 report said that the estimated construction cost of China's demonstration HTGR is about US$5,000/kW ‒ about twice the initial cost estimates."

"The World Nuclear Association states that the cost of the demonstration HTGR is US$6,000/kW."

This is actually cheap compared to the other reactors, but still is a lot more than expected.


How can nuclear become a useful addition to our energy generation if we can't control the costs? It is much cheaper to just build wind or solar and provide for backup generation.

--

Rick C.

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

 

On Saturday, October 12, 2019 at 9:29:33 AM UTC-10, Rick C wrote:

I wonder if we (the global "we") will continue to build nuclear power facilities much longer. It just seems like the cost and risks are untenable and the tax payers are picking up the tab for the overruns. From a recent article about US nuclear power.

"The high cost of constructing plants has made it difficult for nuclear power to compete with other energy options in the United States, particularly natural gas. The high cost of nuclear power has led to a significant decline in the construction of new plants—with just one plant, Watts Bar 2, entering commercial operation in the past 20 years.

"In 2017, two South Carolina utilities abandoned two unfinished Westinghouse AP1000 reactors due to difficulties in equipment manufacturing, significant construction delays, and cost overruns—leaving just two other AP1000 reactors under construction, in the state of Georgia. These reactors have also faced delays and cost overruns. The original cost estimate of $14 billion has risen to $23 billion, but construction is proceeding, given the promise of government financial support for these reactors—the first of their kind in the United States."

The European projects aren't faring much better.

The Russian nuclear barge...

"A 2016 OECD Nuclear Energy Agency report said that electricity produced by the plant is expected to cost about US$200/MWh, with the high cost due to large staffing requirements, high fuel costs, and resources required to maintain the barge and coastal infrastructure."

This is around double what consumers pay for electricity in the US.

The Hinkley facility in the UK...

"EDF Energy said the construction cost for Hinkley Point C in Somerset had climbed by between £1.9bn to £2.9bn from the company’s last estimates and is running the risk of further delays.

As a consequence, the total cost has risen from ÂŁ19.5bn to between ÂŁ21.5bn and ÂŁ22.5bn."

Other sites in the EU are not doing much better...

"EDF is using the same reactor design at the Olkiluoto nuclear project in Finland and at Flamanville in France, where costs have also spiralled by billions of euros."

At least at Hinkley the costs will be borne by the shareholders in the plant, not the rate payers... so they say. But in the future...

"The government has confirmed plans for consumers to begin paying for new nuclear reactors before they are built, and for taxpayers to pay a share of any cost overruns or construction delays."

Even in China costs don't seem to be under control...

"According to the World Nuclear Association, China's Institute of Nuclear and New Energy Technology at Tsinghua University expects the cost of a 655 MWe HTGR to be 15-20% more than the cost of a conventional 600 MWe PWR.3

A 2016 report said that the estimated construction cost of China's demonstration HTGR is about US$5,000/kW ‒ about twice the initial cost estimates."

"The World Nuclear Association states that the cost of the demonstration HTGR is US$6,000/kW."

This is actually cheap compared to the other reactors, but still is a lot more than expected.


How can nuclear become a useful addition to our energy generation if we can't control the costs? It is much cheaper to just build wind or solar and provide for backup generation.

--

Rick C.

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

Uranium energy production uses a process that is not stable.
The conditions for the core of the reactor are on a knife-edge.
Millisecond bursts of neutrons need some moderation.
Mechanical breaks and thermal hot spots take that knife-
edge and point it at us.
That is why it costs so much: the control room and its
people are the very finest that money can persuade to be
there. Expensive dumping of exhaust is soon to be allowed.
Get on the gravy train, today.

 

[Uwe Bonnes]

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

I wonder if we (the global "we") will continue to build nuclear
power facilities much longer. It just seems like the cost and
risks are untenable and the tax payers are picking up the tab
for the overruns.

As long as there are countries trying to get or substain their nuclear
weapon arsenal, there will be nuclear (power) reactors.
--
Uwe Bonnes bon@elektron.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de

Institut fuer Kernphysik Schlossgartenstrasse 9 64289 Darmstadt
--------- Tel. 06151 1623569 ------- Fax. 06151 1623305 ---------

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Saturday, October 12, 2019 at 4:21:27 PM UTC-4, omni...@gmail.com wrote:

On Saturday, October 12, 2019 at 9:29:33 AM UTC-10, Rick C wrote:
I wonder if we (the global "we") will continue to build nuclear power facilities much longer. It just seems like the cost and risks are untenable and the tax payers are picking up the tab for the overruns. From a recent article about US nuclear power.

"The high cost of constructing plants has made it difficult for nuclear power to compete with other energy options in the United States, particularly natural gas. The high cost of nuclear power has led to a significant decline in the construction of new plants—with just one plant, Watts Bar 2, entering commercial operation in the past 20 years.

"In 2017, two South Carolina utilities abandoned two unfinished Westinghouse AP1000 reactors due to difficulties in equipment manufacturing, significant construction delays, and cost overruns—leaving just two other AP1000 reactors under construction, in the state of Georgia. These reactors have also faced delays and cost overruns. The original cost estimate of $14 billion has risen to $23 billion, but construction is proceeding, given the promise of government financial support for these reactors—the first of their kind in the United States."

The European projects aren't faring much better.

The Russian nuclear barge...

"A 2016 OECD Nuclear Energy Agency report said that electricity produced by the plant is expected to cost about US$200/MWh, with the high cost due to large staffing requirements, high fuel costs, and resources required to maintain the barge and coastal infrastructure."

This is around double what consumers pay for electricity in the US.

The Hinkley facility in the UK...

"EDF Energy said the construction cost for Hinkley Point C in Somerset had climbed by between £1.9bn to £2.9bn from the company’s last estimates and is running the risk of further delays.

As a consequence, the total cost has risen from ÂŁ19.5bn to between ÂŁ21.5bn and ÂŁ22.5bn."

Other sites in the EU are not doing much better...

"EDF is using the same reactor design at the Olkiluoto nuclear project in Finland and at Flamanville in France, where costs have also spiralled by billions of euros."

At least at Hinkley the costs will be borne by the shareholders in the plant, not the rate payers... so they say. But in the future...

"The government has confirmed plans for consumers to begin paying for new nuclear reactors before they are built, and for taxpayers to pay a share of any cost overruns or construction delays."

Even in China costs don't seem to be under control...

"According to the World Nuclear Association, China's Institute of Nuclear and New Energy Technology at Tsinghua University expects the cost of a 655 MWe HTGR to be 15-20% more than the cost of a conventional 600 MWe PWR.3

A 2016 report said that the estimated construction cost of China's demonstration HTGR is about US$5,000/kW ‒ about twice the initial cost estimates."

"The World Nuclear Association states that the cost of the demonstration HTGR is US$6,000/kW."

This is actually cheap compared to the other reactors, but still is a lot more than expected.


How can nuclear become a useful addition to our energy generation if we can't control the costs? It is much cheaper to just build wind or solar and provide for backup generation.

--

Rick C.

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

Uranium energy production uses a process that is not stable.
The conditions for the core of the reactor are on a knife-edge.

That's total and pure BS.

 

[Cameo]

On 10/12/2019 9:29 PM, Rick C wrote:

I wonder if we (the global "we") will continue to build nuclear power facilities much longer. It just seems like the cost and risks are untenable and the tax payers are picking up the tab for the overruns. From a recent article about US nuclear power.

"The high cost of constructing plants has made it difficult for nuclear power to compete with other energy options in the United States, particularly natural gas. The high cost of nuclear power has led to a significant decline in the construction of new plants—with just one plant, Watts Bar 2, entering commercial operation in the past 20 years.

"In 2017, two South Carolina utilities abandoned two unfinished Westinghouse AP1000 reactors due to difficulties in equipment manufacturing, significant construction delays, and cost overruns—leaving just two other AP1000 reactors under construction, in the state of Georgia. These reactors have also faced delays and cost overruns. The original cost estimate of $14 billion has risen to $23 billion, but construction is proceeding, given the promise of government financial support for these reactors—the first of their kind in the United States."

The European projects aren't faring much better.

The Russian nuclear barge...

"A 2016 OECD Nuclear Energy Agency report said that electricity produced by the plant is expected to cost about US$200/MWh, with the high cost due to large staffing requirements, high fuel costs, and resources required to maintain the barge and coastal infrastructure."

This is around double what consumers pay for electricity in the US.

The Hinkley facility in the UK...

"EDF Energy said the construction cost for Hinkley Point C in Somerset had climbed by between £1.9bn to £2.9bn from the company’s last estimates and is running the risk of further delays.

As a consequence, the total cost has risen from ÂŁ19.5bn to between ÂŁ21.5bn and ÂŁ22.5bn."

Other sites in the EU are not doing much better...

"EDF is using the same reactor design at the Olkiluoto nuclear project in Finland and at Flamanville in France, where costs have also spiralled by billions of euros."

At least at Hinkley the costs will be borne by the shareholders in the plant, not the rate payers... so they say. But in the future...

"The government has confirmed plans for consumers to begin paying for new nuclear reactors before they are built, and for taxpayers to pay a share of any cost overruns or construction delays."

Even in China costs don't seem to be under control...

"According to the World Nuclear Association, China's Institute of Nuclear and New Energy Technology at Tsinghua University expects the cost of a 655 MWe HTGR to be 15-20% more than the cost of a conventional 600 MWe PWR.3

A 2016 report said that the estimated construction cost of China's demonstration HTGR is about US$5,000/kW ‒ about twice the initial cost estimates."

"The World Nuclear Association states that the cost of the demonstration HTGR is US$6,000/kW."

This is actually cheap compared to the other reactors, but still is a lot more than expected.


How can nuclear become a useful addition to our energy generation if we can't control the costs? It is much cheaper to just build wind or solar and provide for backup generation.

I suppose the huge permitting process and liability insurance is large
part of the cost.

 

[amdx]

On 10/12/2019 4:08 PM, Uwe Bonnes wrote:

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:
I wonder if we (the global "we") will continue to build nuclear
power facilities much longer. It just seems like the cost and
risks are untenable and the tax payers are picking up the tab
for the overruns.

As long as there are countries trying to get or substain their nuclear
weapon arsenal, there will be nuclear (power) reactors.

I thought a lot of it was overcoming the lawsuits from people trying
to stop the nuclear plants.
Mikek

 

[Rick C]

On Saturday, October 12, 2019 at 5:08:16 PM UTC-4, Uwe Bonnes wrote:

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:
I wonder if we (the global "we") will continue to build nuclear
power facilities much longer. It just seems like the cost and
risks are untenable and the tax payers are picking up the tab
for the overruns.

As long as there are countries trying to get or substain their nuclear
weapon arsenal, there will be nuclear (power) reactors.

Civilian power reactors don't product military plutonium. In theory they can, but it takes a LOT longer to produce enough to make a bomb, more than a year to do what a military reactor can do in a day.

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Rick C]

On Saturday, October 12, 2019 at 5:57:50 PM UTC-4, Cameo wrote:

On 10/12/2019 9:29 PM, Rick C wrote:
I wonder if we (the global "we") will continue to build nuclear power facilities much longer. It just seems like the cost and risks are untenable and the tax payers are picking up the tab for the overruns. From a recent article about US nuclear power.

"The high cost of constructing plants has made it difficult for nuclear power to compete with other energy options in the United States, particularly natural gas. The high cost of nuclear power has led to a significant decline in the construction of new plants—with just one plant, Watts Bar 2, entering commercial operation in the past 20 years.

"In 2017, two South Carolina utilities abandoned two unfinished Westinghouse AP1000 reactors due to difficulties in equipment manufacturing, significant construction delays, and cost overruns—leaving just two other AP1000 reactors under construction, in the state of Georgia. These reactors have also faced delays and cost overruns. The original cost estimate of $14 billion has risen to $23 billion, but construction is proceeding, given the promise of government financial support for these reactors—the first of their kind in the United States."

The European projects aren't faring much better.

The Russian nuclear barge...

"A 2016 OECD Nuclear Energy Agency report said that electricity produced by the plant is expected to cost about US$200/MWh, with the high cost due to large staffing requirements, high fuel costs, and resources required to maintain the barge and coastal infrastructure."

This is around double what consumers pay for electricity in the US.

The Hinkley facility in the UK...

"EDF Energy said the construction cost for Hinkley Point C in Somerset had climbed by between £1.9bn to £2.9bn from the company’s last estimates and is running the risk of further delays.

As a consequence, the total cost has risen from ÂŁ19.5bn to between ÂŁ21.5bn and ÂŁ22.5bn."

Other sites in the EU are not doing much better...

"EDF is using the same reactor design at the Olkiluoto nuclear project in Finland and at Flamanville in France, where costs have also spiralled by billions of euros."

At least at Hinkley the costs will be borne by the shareholders in the plant, not the rate payers... so they say. But in the future...

"The government has confirmed plans for consumers to begin paying for new nuclear reactors before they are built, and for taxpayers to pay a share of any cost overruns or construction delays."

Even in China costs don't seem to be under control...

"According to the World Nuclear Association, China's Institute of Nuclear and New Energy Technology at Tsinghua University expects the cost of a 655 MWe HTGR to be 15-20% more than the cost of a conventional 600 MWe PWR.3

A 2016 report said that the estimated construction cost of China's demonstration HTGR is about US$5,000/kW ‒ about twice the initial cost estimates."

"The World Nuclear Association states that the cost of the demonstration HTGR is US$6,000/kW."

This is actually cheap compared to the other reactors, but still is a lot more than expected.


How can nuclear become a useful addition to our energy generation if we can't control the costs? It is much cheaper to just build wind or solar and provide for backup generation.

I suppose the huge permitting process and liability insurance is large
part of the cost.

But that is the very first thing they have to do... So why do facilities that are only partly built suddenly develop schedule and budgetary problems?

The plant at Hinkley Point in England (using the French design) is so very late and overbudget because "The nuclear developer blamed challenging ground conditions". Ground conditions??? They can't even understand DIRT???

If you have a construction company who feels dirt is a challenge, I'm thinking the problem is not the "permitting process".

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Rick C]

On Saturday, October 12, 2019 at 5:49:45 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote:

On 10/12/2019 4:08 PM, Uwe Bonnes wrote:
Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:
I wonder if we (the global "we") will continue to build nuclear
power facilities much longer. It just seems like the cost and
risks are untenable and the tax payers are picking up the tab
for the overruns.

As long as there are countries trying to get or substain their nuclear
weapon arsenal, there will be nuclear (power) reactors.


I thought a lot of it was overcoming the lawsuits from people trying
to stop the nuclear plants.
Mikek

Really? You think that years into construction people are filing law suits the cost the companies billions of dollars to deal with? Man, I knew lawyers made good money, but that is amazing!

We've already had that discussion and the law suits are brushed aside like a fly. Dominion spent half a billion dollars getting approval for a new reactor which was mostly the design process. Now they will need to spend another $19 billion if they decide to actually build it... at least that's the current estimate. So you think most of this will be spent fighting law suits in court???

Personally I have no problem what so ever letting utilities build whatever they want. My problem is when they require the consumers to pay for it, like the half billion they spent on a reactor they may never build. The consumers are already paying for that in their bills as approved by the VA state legislature.

In South Carolina consumers are paying for reactors that ended up being so over budget they had to cancel the project since no one could pay to finish it. Westinghouse went bankrupt trying to make it happen. It wasn't because of any lawsuits. It was because no one in the entire world seems to be able to properly plan and budget to construct nuclear reactors. No one. Not even the French who get something like 85% of their electrical power from nuclear facilities. They designed three nukes that are presently all way over budget and have blown the schedules by years. One has been under construction for years and even now is not expected to be producing power until 2025.

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Saturday, October 12, 2019 at 6:15:17 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

On Saturday, October 12, 2019 at 5:49:45 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
On 10/12/2019 4:08 PM, Uwe Bonnes wrote:
Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:
I wonder if we (the global "we") will continue to build nuclear
power facilities much longer. It just seems like the cost and
risks are untenable and the tax payers are picking up the tab
for the overruns.

As long as there are countries trying to get or substain their nuclear
weapon arsenal, there will be nuclear (power) reactors.


I thought a lot of it was overcoming the lawsuits from people trying
to stop the nuclear plants.
Mikek

Really? You think that years into construction people are filing law suits the cost the companies billions of dollars to deal with? Man, I knew lawyers made good money, but that is amazing!

We've already had that discussion and the law suits are brushed aside like a fly. Dominion spent half a billion dollars getting approval for a new reactor which was mostly the design process. Now they will need to spend another $19 billion if they decide to actually build it... at least that's the current estimate. So you think most of this will be spent fighting law suits in court???

First, why can't you follow newsgroup protocol, and mark your off topic
threads, OT?

Second, we've been through this in another thread recently, so why start
it up all over again?

Third, where do you think solar would be on the cost curve if instead of
subsidizing it, we had dozens of groups filing one lawsuit after another
to block each installation?

Fourth, given, three, what dumb fucks would go down a path where they
have to shell out tens of millions, maybe hundreds, only to have some
new lawsuit succeed?

Fifth, if global warming is going to doom the planet in the near future,
then instead of posting this stupid stuff, why aren't you demanding that
more nukes be built quickly to save us all? It's obvious to everyone
but the tree hugging psychos that the track record of nuclear is great
compared to global extinction.







> Personally I have no problem what so ever letting utilities build whatever they want.

That's a lie or you wouldn't be bringing this up here AGAIN.

You make much money of that Tesla spamming?

 

[Tim Williams]

"Rick C" <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9638db23-2e8c-44d9-b99b-1f770fdf24ff@googlegroups.com...

Civilian power reactors don't product military plutonium. In theory they
can, but it takes a LOT longer to produce enough to make a bomb, more than
a year to do what a military reactor can do in a day.

Not necessarily. It's my understanding that bombs have been demonstrated
from Pu244 (the common byproduct in commercial "spent" fuel) and even higher
(curium, americium? I forget which isotopes).

"Nice" thing is, because they're more active, the critical mass is smaller
too. Think the main difference is it needs to be "assembled" more quickly?
So, precision explosives, probably the implosion type rather than the gun
type?, and a better neutron activator are called for, I suppose. All of
which are solved problems in the development of higher-yielding
vanilla-flavor bombs.

I don't know that the military, or at least our military, has any interest
in those isotopes, or certainly no need. Probably the research was done
(short of demonstrating a device, or maybe they did?) for proliferation
reasons.

Tim

--
Seven Transistor Labs, LLC
Electrical Engineering Consultation and Design
Website: https://www.seventransistorlabs.com/

 

[Michael Terrell]

On Saturday, October 12, 2019 at 7:16:01 PM UTC-4, Tim Williams wrote:

"Rick C" <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9638db23-2e8c-44d9-b99b-1f770fdf24ff@googlegroups.com...

Civilian power reactors don't product military plutonium. In theory they
can, but it takes a LOT longer to produce enough to make a bomb, more than
a year to do what a military reactor can do in a day.


Not necessarily. It's my understanding that bombs have been demonstrated
from Pu244 (the common byproduct in commercial "spent" fuel) and even higher
(curium, americium? I forget which isotopes).

"Nice" thing is, because they're more active, the critical mass is smaller
too. Think the main difference is it needs to be "assembled" more quickly?
So, precision explosives, probably the implosion type rather than the gun
type?, and a better neutron activator are called for, I suppose. All of
which are solved problems in the development of higher-yielding
vanilla-flavor bombs.

I don't know that the military, or at least our military, has any interest
in those isotopes, or certainly no need. Probably the research was done
(short of demonstrating a device, or maybe they did?) for proliferation
reasons.

The reactor at Ft. Greely was used as a small breeder. It has only been partially declassified, so I don't know which isotopes it produced. It ran through part of the 60' and it was shut down for the last time in 1973. It was about a block from my barracks, and it contaminated our drinking water.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, October 13, 2019 at 8:35:26 AM UTC+11, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Saturday, October 12, 2019 at 4:21:27 PM UTC-4, omni...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, October 12, 2019 at 9:29:33 AM UTC-10, Rick C wrote:

<snipped long list of expensive nuclear reactors>

How can nuclear become a useful addition to our energy generation if we can't control the costs? It is much cheaper to just build wind or solar and provide for backup generation.

Uranium energy production uses a process that is not stable.
The conditions for the core of the reactor are on a knife-edge.

That's total and pure BS.

The claim about nuclear energy production using a process that isn't stable isn't BS. Nuclear reactors have to be controlled - with control rods - to keep neutron production high enough to sustain the nuclear reaction at the desired level. If it starts speeding up, the control rods have to be pushed in further to soak up more neutrons. If it slows down - as it does as the fission products build up in the reactor - the rods have to be pulled out to let more neutons fission more uranium nuclei.

The preceding claim - that nuclear reactor construction is prone to cost over-runs - is well documented.

If Trader4 wanted to argue that that was BS, he'd have to find counter-examples, which seems to be well above his pay grade.

The last time he's tried to support one of his claims by a link to a web-accessible document, the link he'd found agreed with his proposition that lots of homeless people had mental health problems, but in fact asserted that being homeless caused a lot of the mental health problems, so the proper course of action was to stop them getting homeless in the first place, rather than writing off the homeless as unsalvageable, as he was trying to do.

Trader4 is remarkably stupid.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydeny

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, October 13, 2019 at 9:41:39 AM UTC+11, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Saturday, October 12, 2019 at 6:15:17 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Saturday, October 12, 2019 at 5:49:45 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
On 10/12/2019 4:08 PM, Uwe Bonnes wrote:
Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:
I wonder if we (the global "we") will continue to build nuclear
power facilities much longer. It just seems like the cost and
risks are untenable and the tax payers are picking up the tab
for the overruns.

As long as there are countries trying to get or substain their nuclear
weapon arsenal, there will be nuclear (power) reactors.


I thought a lot of it was overcoming the lawsuits from people trying
to stop the nuclear plants.
Mikek

Really? You think that years into construction people are filing law suits the cost the companies billions of dollars to deal with? Man, I knew lawyers made good money, but that is amazing!

We've already had that discussion and the law suits are brushed aside like a fly. Dominion spent half a billion dollars getting approval for a new reactor which was mostly the design process. Now they will need to spend another $19 billion if they decide to actually build it... at least that's the current estimate. So you think most of this will be spent fighting law suits in court???


First, why can't you follow newsgroup protocol, and mark your off topic
threads, OT?

Second, we've been through this in another thread recently, so why start
it up all over again?

Third, where do you think solar would be on the cost curve if instead of
subsidizing it, we had dozens of groups filing one lawsuit after another
to block each installation?

Probably exactly where it is now. The Germans made a commercial decision - some twenty years ago - to invest a heap of capital in setting a solar cell factory that made solar cells in ten times the volume than anybody had before, which allowed them them to sell them at half the price, so they monopolised a much larger market for a few years.

Ten years later, the Chinese did exactly the same thing. They had to invest a lot more capital because they were aiming for another ten-fold increase in production capacity, but it got the price of solar cells down to the point where they don't need any subsidy (at least in places that get plenty of sunlight).

In 2017, solar cells produced 1.7% of all the electricity generated around the world, and production was increasing by 35% per year.

We are about due for another factor of ten scale up in manufacturing volume, which should halve the unit price per kilowatt generated again.

That should make the power cheap enough to make it sensible to invest in the storage gear required to cover the periods when the sun isn't shining.

Fourth, given, three, what dumb fucks would go down a path where they
have to shell out tens of millions, maybe hundreds, only to have some
new lawsuit succeed?

Fifth, if global warming is going to doom the planet in the near future,
then instead of posting this stupid stuff, why aren't you demanding that
more nukes be built quickly to save us all? It's obvious to everyone
but the tree hugging psychos that the track record of nuclear is great
compared to global extinction.

Solar and wind power can do exactly the same job, and with much smaller modules.

Why go for a system which requires huge and expensive plants that take ages to build when you can set up production limes that can chiurn out solar cells and windmills in huge volumes?

Only an idiot like Trader4 would go for nuclear power our situation.

Personally I have no problem what so ever letting utilities build whatever they want.

That's a lie or you wouldn't be bringing this up here AGAIN.

You make much money of that Tesla spamming?

Probably not. He's not hitting a large audience. Win Hill drives a plug-in Prius, and he's got a lot more credibility than Rick C.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Sat, 12 Oct 2019 16:49:35 -0500, amdx <nojunk@knology.net> wrote:

On 10/12/2019 4:08 PM, Uwe Bonnes wrote:
Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:
I wonder if we (the global "we") will continue to build nuclear
power facilities much longer. It just seems like the cost and
risks are untenable and the tax payers are picking up the tab
for the overruns.

As long as there are countries trying to get or substain their nuclear
weapon arsenal, there will be nuclear (power) reactors.


I thought a lot of it was overcoming the lawsuits from people trying
to stop the nuclear plants.

And overcoming piles and piles of regulations placed on the industry
by lefists who are hell bent on bankrupting the industry and moving
civilization back into caves (everyone else, not them, of course).

 

[bitrex]

On 10/13/19 12:49 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Sunday, October 13, 2019 at 3:06:27 PM UTC+11, k...@notreal.com wrote:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2019 16:49:35 -0500, amdx <nojunk@knology.net> wrote:

On 10/12/2019 4:08 PM, Uwe Bonnes wrote:
Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:
I wonder if we (the global "we") will continue to build nuclear
power facilities much longer. It just seems like the cost and
risks are untenable and the tax payers are picking up the tab
for the overruns.

As long as there are countries trying to get or substain their nuclear
weapon arsenal, there will be nuclear (power) reactors.


I thought a lot of it was overcoming the lawsuits from people trying
to stop the nuclear plants.

And overcoming piles and piles of regulations placed on the industry
by lefists who are hell bent on bankrupting the industry and moving
civilization back into caves (everyone else, not them, of course).

Looking at it from a slightly more rational point of view, the regulations were put in place by essentially a-political people who were interested in avoiding more Chernobyls, Fukushima's and Three Mile Islands.

Quite how making nuclear power slightly more expensive would have moved civilisation back into caves isn't entirely clear. We moved out of caves long before nuclear power was an option, and wind and solar power - and fair bit of grid-scale battery storage - seem perfectly capable of keeping us out of the caves in future.

Krw's read only memory seems to have programmed with a lot of misinformation back whenever it got programmed, but this is fairly recent denialist propaganda of a particularly silly sort.

The public in the US pretty accurately recognized that the nuclear power
industry was staffed by ex-DOD people, "Neon Johns", Enron-style
predatory executives, and various fashions of megalomaniacs who
habitually underrepresented the real-life risks and would gladly tell
any lie and regularly sweep any safety issues short of a catastrophic
failure under the rug to get to play with their nuke-toys and make a
quick buck in the process, if left to their own devices.

 

[whit3rd]

On Saturday, October 12, 2019 at 3:29:33 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

> I wonder if we (the global "we") will continue to build nuclear power facilities much longer. It just seems like the cost and risks are untenable

Almost any 'seems like' scenario can be created as an exercise in spin.

> A 2016 report said that the estimated construction cost of China's demonstration HTGR is about US$5,000/kW ‒ about twice the initial cost estimates."

If it produces for 20 years, 250 days/year, that amounts to $5000 for 1.2x10^5 kWh,
or about 4 cents/kWh; it doesn't kill the economics, unless another source is available cheaper.

>How can nuclear become a useful addition to our energy generation if we can't control the costs?

Every nuclear submarine comes online according to contract, though, so why are
you so sure 'we' cannot control (and who, exactly, is 'we'?) costs for nuclear?

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, October 13, 2019 at 3:06:27 PM UTC+11, k...@notreal.com wrote:

On Sat, 12 Oct 2019 16:49:35 -0500, amdx <nojunk@knology.net> wrote:

On 10/12/2019 4:08 PM, Uwe Bonnes wrote:
Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:
I wonder if we (the global "we") will continue to build nuclear
power facilities much longer. It just seems like the cost and
risks are untenable and the tax payers are picking up the tab
for the overruns.

As long as there are countries trying to get or substain their nuclear
weapon arsenal, there will be nuclear (power) reactors.


I thought a lot of it was overcoming the lawsuits from people trying
to stop the nuclear plants.

And overcoming piles and piles of regulations placed on the industry
by lefists who are hell bent on bankrupting the industry and moving
civilization back into caves (everyone else, not them, of course).

Looking at it from a slightly more rational point of view, the regulations were put in place by essentially a-political people who were interested in avoiding more Chernobyls, Fukushima's and Three Mile Islands.

Quite how making nuclear power slightly more expensive would have moved civilisation back into caves isn't entirely clear. We moved out of caves long before nuclear power was an option, and wind and solar power - and fair bit of grid-scale battery storage - seem perfectly capable of keeping us out of the caves in future.

Krw's read only memory seems to have programmed with a lot of misinformation back whenever it got programmed, but this is fairly recent denialist propaganda of a particularly silly sort.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[bitrex]

On 10/13/19 2:31 AM, bitrex wrote:

The public in the US pretty accurately recognized that the nuclear power
industry was staffed by ex-DOD people, "Neon Johns", Enron-style
predatory executives, and various fashions of megalomaniacs who
habitually underrepresented the real-life risks and would gladly tell
any lie and regularly sweep any safety issues short of a catastrophic
failure under the rug to get to play with their nuke-toys and make a
quick buck in the process, if left to their own devices.

This isn't even about the risk which is not as trivial as some would
like you to believe.  I was amazed when I ran the numbers and found
the risk of core damage with a release of radiation was 1 in 10 across
the US industry over the lifetime of the reactors FROM EARTHQUAKE
ALONE!  That isn't even the largest of the different sources of risk.


The practical engineering problems of developing fission nuclear power
infrastructure to the point it's considered as solid an investment as
coal, oil, and natural gas are like the classic three-legged stool but
the stool is in four-dimensional space and you can only adjust the legs
via manipulating its "shadow" or projection in three-dimensional space.
nobody really has any idea what it is. or what "it" would look like. and
anyone who says "well we'll just eyeball that as we go" is nuts.

Physics of PN junctions is complex, but not complicated. You can fairly
well imagine what a much larger solar-based infrastructure would look like.

That is to say fission tech as it is now looks great in small doses but
falls down on the scaling.

 

[bitrex]

On 10/13/19 2:10 AM, Rick C wrote:

On Sunday, October 13, 2019 at 1:28:35 AM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
On 10/13/19 12:49 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, October 13, 2019 at 3:06:27 PM UTC+11, k...@notreal.com wrote:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2019 16:49:35 -0500, amdx <nojunk@knology.net> wrote:

On 10/12/2019 4:08 PM, Uwe Bonnes wrote:
Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:
I wonder if we (the global "we") will continue to build nuclear
power facilities much longer. It just seems like the cost and
risks are untenable and the tax payers are picking up the tab
for the overruns.

As long as there are countries trying to get or substain their nuclear
weapon arsenal, there will be nuclear (power) reactors.


I thought a lot of it was overcoming the lawsuits from people trying
to stop the nuclear plants.

And overcoming piles and piles of regulations placed on the industry
by lefists who are hell bent on bankrupting the industry and moving
civilization back into caves (everyone else, not them, of course).

Looking at it from a slightly more rational point of view, the regulations were put in place by essentially a-political people who were interested in avoiding more Chernobyls, Fukushima's and Three Mile Islands.

Quite how making nuclear power slightly more expensive would have moved civilisation back into caves isn't entirely clear. We moved out of caves long before nuclear power was an option, and wind and solar power - and fair bit of grid-scale battery storage - seem perfectly capable of keeping us out of the caves in future.

Krw's read only memory seems to have programmed with a lot of misinformation back whenever it got programmed, but this is fairly recent denialist propaganda of a particularly silly sort.


The public in the US pretty accurately recognized that the nuclear power
industry was staffed by ex-DOD people, "Neon Johns", Enron-style
predatory executives, and various fashions of megalomaniacs who
habitually underrepresented the real-life risks and would gladly tell
any lie and regularly sweep any safety issues short of a catastrophic
failure under the rug to get to play with their nuke-toys and make a
quick buck in the process, if left to their own devices.

This isn't even about the risk which is not as trivial as some would like you to believe. I was amazed when I ran the numbers and found the risk of core damage with a release of radiation was 1 in 10 across the US industry over the lifetime of the reactors FROM EARTHQUAKE ALONE! That isn't even the largest of the different sources of risk.

The practical engineering problems of developing fission nuclear power
infrastructure to the point it's considered as solid an investment as
coal, oil, and natural gas are like the classic three-legged stool but
the stool is in four-dimensional space and you can only adjust the legs
via manipulating its "shadow" or projection in three-dimensional space.
nobody really has any idea what it is. or what "it" would look like. and
anyone who says "well we'll just eyeball that as we go" is nuts.

Physics of PN junctions is complex, but not complicated. You can fairly
well imagine what a much larger solar-based infrastructure would look like.