Reply #3: Comparing aging infrastructure to new?

[kristopher]

First let's talk about total cost of going with a technology vs the retail price of electricity:
Of all 132 U.S. nuclear plants built—just over half of the 253 originally ordered—21% were permanently and
prematurely closed due to reliability or cost problems. Another 27% have completely failed for a
year or more at least once. The surviving U.S. nuclear plants have lately averaged ~90% of their
full-load full-time potential—a major improvement31 for which the industry deserves much
credit—but they are still not fully dependable. Even reliably-running nuclear plants must shut
down, on average, for ~39 days every ~17 months for refueling and maintenance. Unexpected
failures occur too, shutting down upwards of a billion watts in milliseconds, often for weeks to
months. Solar cells and windpower don’t fail so ungracefully.
-Lovins, Four Nuclear Myths

Who paid for those failures? I put that out there as an example of the costs involved with nuclear that are not reflected in the retail price of the product of the ones that ARE built. But those costs are very, very real.

THe CBO predicts that the current crop of plants will also have a better than 50% bankruptcy rate; so it seems that is a cost that is going to be there now also.

The nuclear plants in France are aging (they embarked on their program in the 50s) and they are owned by the governmental French electrical provider EDF. EDF hawks the French company Areva's design being used in Finland. As is the norm with nuclear power, the plant is far over budget and well behind schedule. And to show that France isn't alone, "of the 45 reactors being built around the world, 22 have encountered construction delays" according to the NYT. According to company officials, the EDF plant in Finland is now scheduled to come online in 2012, a full three years after the scheduled date. Considering that finance costs are one of the largest line items in the cost of a nuclear plant, who is going to shoulder the burden of that cost?

Then there is the matter of the electricity that Finland was expecting to be getting from the plant today to meet their rising needs. Where is that going to come from, a magic electric genie? The Finns are going to have to either build additional capacity they didn't plan for, or they are going to need to import power. Who pays the difference between the promised price of the electricity from Areva and what they actually have to pay for 3+ years?

When the statistics for reliability and capacity factor are compiled, are you going to the count 3+ years of delay as down time against the operational life of the reactor? Since the alternative technologies do not have that problem with delays, it seems fair that this difference in the underlying reliability be taken into account statistically.

So the people and government are pissed. The FRENCH promised them a reactor for $4.1 billion dollars, now they are up to $7.2 billion and still years away from completion.

I know it makes me a villain in your eyes, but I can't help but think that the contemporary French experience confirms the analysis of independent experts, it doesn't contradict them.