Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Finishline42

(1,091 posts)
14. Thanks for taking the time to reply, but...
Mon May 2, 2016, 11:03 AM
May 2016

Here's something I found on the topic of decommissioning nuclear plants:

“The most reliable estimate of the cost of decommissioning [a nuclear power plant] is 10-15 percent of the construction cost, contrary to some highly inflated estimates ... Modern serious studies of the disposal problem indicate that satisfactory isolation is technologically feasible, even for the long term.” So wrote MIT nuclear engineering professor David Rose in the November 1985 issue of The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

How misguided that view seems now, with the advantage of decades of experience. The Yankee Nuclear Power Station in Rowe, Massachusetts, took 15 years to decommission—or five times longer than was needed to build it. And decommissioning the plant—constructed early in the 1960s for $39 million—cost $608 million. The plant’s spent fuel rods are still stored in a facility on-site, because there is no permanent disposal repository to put them in. To monitor them and make sure the material does not fall into the hands of terrorists or spill into the nearby river costs $8 million per year. That cost will continue for an unknown number of years. David Lochbaum of the Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that even without the ongoing costs of monitoring and security, the average reactor now costs about $500 million to deactivate.


snip

In 1988, a Nuclear Regulatory Commission study said utilities should set aside just $100 to $130 million in decommissioning funds per plant, according to the Bulletin article, “Last rites for first commercial reactor.”

http://thebulletin.org/rising-cost-decommissioning-nuclear-power-plant7107

So to my point - rate payers or tax payers will make up the difference between what is set aside and what it really costs.

The point about the fact that we only produce a small amount of uranium domestically is the same as relying on foreign oil. It's a required commodity that is subject to wild swings in the market and rate payers will always be the ones that pay the price.

My statement > because the energy source is free and inexhaustible

Your answer > That's not really a notable advantage when comparing them to nuclear power. Uranium is a very small portion of the electric bill. As has been pointed out up-thread, if all of the electricity you consumer over your lifetime were generated by nuclear power... the total fuel used could fit in your hand. Does it really matter whether the raw mineral sells for $10/lb or hundreds? Nope.

Yes uranium is a small part (none in my area) of someone's electric bill but they are also a small part of a fuel rod. How many tons of fuel rods does a typical nuke plant go through in a year (of course we all know that there's no solution for the disposition of spent fuel rods other than just store them on site - which is why Fuckusall is such a disaster)?

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Handlesblatt: Germany ha...»Reply #14