Nuclear reactors will cost twice estimate, says E.ON chief

[bananas]

£4.8 billion UK pounds = $9.4 billion US dollars

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/utilities/article3872870.ece

May 5, 2008
Nuclear reactors will cost twice estimate, says E.ON chief
Robin Pagnamenta

The Government has vastly underestimated the cost of building a new generation of nuclear power plants, according to the head of the world's largest power company.

Wulf Bernotat, chairman and chief executive of E.ON, the German energy giant that owns Powergen, has told The Times that the cost per plant could be as high as €6 billion (£4.8 billion) - nearly double the Government's latest £2.8 billion estimate.

His figures indicate that the cost of replacing Britain's ten nuclear power stations could reach £48 billion, excluding the cost of decommissioning ageing reactors or dealing with nuclear waste. “We are talking easily about €5 billion to €6 billion ,” Dr Bernotat said.

<snip>

Dr Bernotat's estimates are based on E.ON's experience as a partner in the construction of a nuclear plant in Finland to a French design viewed as the most likely for deployment in Britain. He estimated the cost of that project at €4.5 billion.

<snip>

[Pawel K]

1. That's fine, it's well worth it

there is no price too high for eliminating the leading source of CO2 emissions, coal power plants.

[louis-t]

2. I hope they don't ask to bury nukyuler waste in your yard.

[Pawel K]

4. They don't bury it in anyone's backyard, so I don't get your point

yes, nuclear waste is a big issue but it is an issue we can resolve in the short term. The constant inhalation of the polluted air is much worse for you than nuclear waste, stored in some desert, ever will.

[louis-t]

9. Most of the waste in MI is stored near the Great Lakes.

That seems to be cause for concern. It would need to be transported across the country to get to "some desert". That seems to be cause for more concern. I do agree coal is a problem.

[FREEWILL56]

29. Sorry, but nuclear waste is NOT short term anything

and you don't know what effect putting it anywhere for centuries how it will have an impact as you don't care about future problems as you are focussing on only the immediate. Both are very problematic to environmental safety.

[bananas]

3. Not if it turns into an expensive boondoggle

Every year the cost estimates have gone up significantly.

[Pawel K]

5. I don't see how providing clean energy can turn in to a boondoggle

It is a technology that is proven to work. Meanwhile we are spending billions researching solar and other inefficient energy sources.

You want to do something in the short term that will help impact global warming? Then nuclear power is your answer, even if it costs a fair amount of money.

[bananas]

6. Whoops! WPPSS "customers will continue paying for those uncompleted plants through 2021"

Here's just one example:

Whoops

Slang for the Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS), which made the record books with the largest municipal bond default in history.

During the 1970s and 80s, the WPPSS financed the construction of five nuclear power plants through the issuance of billions of dollars worth of municipal bonds. In 1983, due to extremely poor project management, construction on a couple of plants was canceled, and the completion of construction on the remaining plants seemed unlikely. Consequently, the take-or-pay arrangements that had been backing the municipal bonds were ruled void by the Washington Supreme Court. As a result, the WPPSS had the largest municipal debt default in history.... Whoops!

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/whoops.asp

Whoops! WPPSS "customers will continue paying for those uncompleted plants through 2021"
What a boondoggle.

<snip>

WPPSS itself may have receded into the dim recesses of the region's consciousness, but WPPSS payments continue to show up every month on the region's electric bills. The Bonneville Power Administration had guaranteed nearly all the bonds sold to finance the first three plants. BPA customers will continue paying for those uncompleted plants through 2021. Currently, the annual debt service tab runs to roughly $311 million.

<snip>

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x143316

[bananas]

7. Here's another example - Oregon's first and only nuclear power plant

Reminder-they're blowing up the cooling tower at Trojan nuke plant Sunday

<snip>

RAINIER, Ore. - One of Oregon's most recognizable and controversial landmarks is about to collapse in a cloud of dust. Portland General Electric Co. plans to implode the massive cooling tower on Sunday at its defunct Trojan Nuclear Power Plant, northwest of Portland.

The 499-foot tower will be reduced to a 41,000-ton pile of rubble by about 2,000 pounds of explosives. It was Oregon's first and only nuclear power plant.

"The nuclear history in Oregon is a troubled one at best," said David Stewart-Smith, retired assistant director for the Oregon Department of Energy. "It started off as the new and exciting technology but didn't pan out very well."

Trojan opened in 1976 and was beset by problems until it closed in 1993.

The plant was built near a geological fault in the Columbia River in the '70s. In 1989, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission fined PGE for debris in two sumps that could have prevented its emergency core-cooling system from working in a disaster.

<snip>

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1241250

The Trojan Tower, nuclear relic, eyesore & landmark is coming down

<snip>

It was the inspiration for the Springfield Nuclear Plant in the Simpsons. Matt Groening, the cartoon's creator, grew up with the giant Trojan cooling tower near his hometown of Portland, Oregon.

<snip>

Trojan Nuclear Power Plant opened in 1970 was infamous for it's poor construction and maintenance, resulting in leaking steam generators by 1974. The leaking generators ultimately forced the plant to close permanently in 1992. PGE has been decommissioning the Trojan plant since the company made the decision to shut it down. Since announcing plans to demolish the tower, PGE has been fielding many suggestions on alternative uses for it, including creating an Olympic swimming complex, a giant fishing hole, a Starbucks, a Lowe's Superstore, a giant composter, a prison, and a Simpsons theme park (my favorite one). Despite all the creative ideas, the folks at PGE have decided to demolish the giant eyesore in May 2006 using a controlled demolition company known for having brought down the King Dome in Seattle.

<snip>

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x614843

Listen to people cheer as it came down: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=trojan+nuclear&search_type=

[jpak]

8. $112 billion in stranded costs for 110 canceled US nuclear plants = boondoggle

US nuclear reactors use 62 million pounds of yellowcake each year

US mines produce only 2 million pounds of yellowcake each year.

boondoggle

[losthills]

10. Nucular energy is not clean.

It has a huge carbon footprint behind it from mining and enriching the uranium and dealing with the waste. It has millions of acres of polluted and desecrated public lands behind it and billions of dollars in medical costs from the cancers and birth defects that it has cursed us with.

Nucular power as a "clean" power source that represents a solution to global warming is a myth that has been debunked here many times.

[Nihil]

11. That was *just* like kicking a wasps nest!

One pro-nuclear-power comment and BZZZZZZ the angry swarm assemble to sting
the person who disturbed their blissful care-free lives!

:rofl:

That'll keep them buzzing around posting random anti-nuclear screeds for
the next few days so don't go expecting any sensible stuff in reply until
the annoying creatures settle down again ...
:hi:

[kristopher]

12. It is better to go with wind, solar, geothermal, and wave/current/tidal.

Nuclear is the ugly person in the bar at last call waiting for someone to get drunk on fear of climate change.

[Dead_Parrot]

13. Yeah, because climate is nothing scary, really.

:eyes:
Renewables should be used as far as possible: But for the energy which can't be produced through renewables - which is a hell of a lot - we need to bite the fucking bullet and get on with it.

[kristopher]

14. If you've read my posts (and I know you have)

You know my #1 priority is global warming and eliminating greenhouse gas emissions.

We have the answer if we get off our asses and implement it. Pouring money into a new grid infrastructure built around the renewables I mentioned is the shortest route to eliminating carbon. Nuclear is another dead end like fossil fuels. Get rid of the environmental considerations first and then build all you want; but there have been 50 years of promises on the with no answers to waste, fuel supply and proliferation concerns. Answers first, money second; nuclear has already failed once.

[Dead_Parrot]

16. Hmmm.

Waiting for someone to get drunk on fear of climate change.

Yeah, number 1 priority. riiight. :eyes:

Assuming it really is, all the grid infrastructure in the universe won't help you if there's no energy going in to it. Perhaps you'd like to drop a comment on to this thread and tell us how well plan A is panning out in reality.

[kristopher]

20. Every crackpot with a pet technology is crawling out of the woodwork

Every crackpot with a pet technology is crawling out of the woodwork and yelling that climate change justifies funding their preference. We have to make choices.

I didn't have a pet 5years ago when I started investigating the issue; and I've very carefully and methodically reviewed the peer reviewed science on all of these technologies. In other words, I don't have a bias against anything except is it is either proved or not proved to be a viable answer to GW.

I don't have an irrational fear against nuclear power; and I don't have a problem living across the Delaware Bay from Hope Creek 1&2.

But the fact is even the operators of those plants are concerned about the failures to find acceptable answers to the problems associated with the technology. Until those problems are resolved it is only justifiable if the rate of warming is much faster than we now understand it to be. But then we run into the constraints on ability to construct enough capacity fast enough to meaningfully respond.

In light of that uncertainty and the reality of public opposition we get much further down the road to dealing with climate change by spending the money on the other renewables I mentioned.

You point to Spain using natural gas. That means you don't understand the nature of the way we must respond. Natural gas is going to be the last fossil fuel generators to be turned off. That is why CAES is important. It is a proven, cost effective means of getting a lot more service out of a lot less natural gas. Combine that with widely dispersed wind generation, and the stability of wave and current and solar and as penetration increases the reliance on natural gas diminishes.

And I haven't even factored in V2G.

[Dead_Parrot]

22. Ok, point by point:

Every crackpot with a pet technology is crawling out of the woodwork and yelling that climate change justifies funding their preference. We have to make choices.

... In other words, I don't have a bias against anything except is it is either proved or not proved to be a viable answer to GW...

So far so good.

But the fact is even the operators of those plants are concerned about the failures to find acceptable answers to the problems associated with the technology. Until those problems are resolved it is only justifiable if the rate of warming is much faster than we now understand it to be.

Which problems, exactly? The problem of actually containing the waste? The problem of being 85-95% online as opposed to 25-35%? The problem of not having to invent TWh storage? The problem of having a lower CO₂ impact than PV? The problem of not relying on limited geology?

But then we run into the constraints on ability to construct enough capacity fast enough to meaningfully respond.

Yet you think we can re-invent the world's electrical grid, and/or invent suitable storage, and deploy the alternatives in any sort of meaningful time-scale? I'd be fascinated to hear your plan.

In light of that uncertainty and the reality of public opposition we get much further down the road to dealing with climate change by spending the money on the other renewables I mentioned.

As I said, we should, as far as they can go. But that is not, with current technology, anywhere near enough. If we, as a global civilisation, remain opposed to it then we, as a global civilisation, will die. And we'll fucking deserve it, but I'm worried we'll take lots of innocent species with us and leave the earth a ruined planet.

Some legacy.

You point to Spain using natural gas. That means you don't understand the nature of the way we must respond.

Gosh, enlighten me, oh gassified one.

Natural gas is going to be the last fossil fuel generators to be turned off.

Is it fuck. Supply is already critical across the US and Europe: The last thing to go is going to be coal, because we have shit loads of it.

That is why CAES is important.

Yes, it will spew out CO₂ and eat into a dwindling resource while pretending to be green. It's very important but not, I suspect, for the reasons you think it is.

It is a proven, cost effective means of getting a lot more service out of a lot less natural gas.

Here's a wild idea: How about we not use fossil fuels? And worry more about the biosphere than money?
Out of interest, I had no idea it was 'proven', I thought is was still dicking around in MWh stage - Got a link to a TWh CAES system?

Combine that with widely dispersed wind generation, and the stability of wave and current and solar and as penetration increases the reliance on natural gas diminishes.

What stability? Wave is wind by proxy, current - I assume you mean ocean current hydro - isn't even at the trial stage and solar spends alot of time not working, mainly at night.

And I haven't even factored in V2G.

No, and I haven't factored in increasing electrical production by >100% to cover both static and transport use. More, with transmission. Why, do think that helps your case? Actually, we need to increase it by over 200% to cover industrial off-grid energy. Y'know, shit like the silicon smelters at Elkem, WV that run off coal 24x7 making polysilicon, or the cement plants in Canada that supply turbine bases, and the steel mills around Detroit that make the actual machinery. How many Prius batteries would they take on a windless night?

[jpak]

28. Here's my comment on that thread - PP left out an important paragraph...

<snip>

Chairman Antonio Llarden told a gas industry convention that Enagas expected consumption to rise to 449,580 gigawatt-hours in 2008, on top of a 4.3 percent rise in 2007. "Our projections have risen for one simple reason: there's no water," Llarden said.

<snip>

Climate change induced drought - not wind power - is responsible for the rise in Spanish natural gas consumption...

[FREEWILL56]

31. "nuclear has already failed once."

Correction as it has failed more than once. 2 major failures are Chernobyl and Three mile Island. There have been many others that have not made the public's eye.

[losthills]

15. Nuclear power can't and won't solve global warming.

It sucks up money that should be spent developing renewables and creates problems of it's own that are even worse than climate change.

[Dead_Parrot]

17. "even worse than climate change"?

Fail. Try again.

[losthills]

18. Yeah. A lot worse.

[Dead_Parrot]

19. Now there's a man who's never googled "canfield ocean". nt

[losthills]

21. Does this look "clean" or "carbon free."

If you really know how to use "google," and you really know how to "read," then you have already learned that:

Nuclear power is not carbon free.

Uranium mining is an environmental disaster.

Cancer rates and birth defects in uranium mining communities are a scourge.

Cancer rates downwind of nuclear power plants is measurable and is criminal.

There is not enough money in the world, or enough time to build enough reactors to put a dent in global warming.

The carbon cost, and the environmental costs of fueling your reactors is increasing as we use up the easily obtainable uranium.

You know all this, and we know it, and yet you continue your weak and pathetic attempts to sell us your snake oil. What a sham....

[Dead_Parrot]

23. OK, so still haven't googled "Canfield Ocean"

No surprise there, then. try googling "thermohaline shutdown" or "Great dying", see if you get a clue. If the words are too long, use copy and paste.

Then you can come back and tell us how great climate change is.

Sigh.

Just for shits and giggles, here's where the largest polysilicon plant in the US gets it power:



Oh, look, some lost hills. rofl, etc.

But at least dumping silicon tetrachloride into Qiao Shi Peng's kids is cool, though, 'cos it makes them live forever. Right? Or at least they can lay back and bask in the knowledge that they're dying for a noble cause, like 0.01% of the world's energy.

Gosh, it makes you proud to be one of the RPG, doesn't it?

[losthills]

24. Google "Snake Oil Salesman."

Solar power helps to address global warming.
Nuclear power does not.

But carry on with your pitch. It's great entertainment, and maybe there's a sucker out there that will actually buy some of your shit.....

[phantom power]

25. why doe solar power help address global warming better than nuclear?

[losthills]

27. Nuclear power plants require a continuous supply of fuel,

as do coal fired plants.

Solar and wind installations require no fuel. Once they are built they operate with no carbon cost and minimal maintainance. Once a nuclear plant is built, the carbon costs of operating it, fueling it, and maintaining it continue forever.

Solar installations emit no pollution. Nuclear plants do.

Nuclear power requires a huge grid, with all the carbon costs of of constructing it and maintaining it-- Solar and wind power do not.

Solar and wind power can be implemented and distributed and augmented cheaply and easily, as and where needed. Nuclear power requires billions of dollars and many years to implement-- that's what this thread is about.

Comparing mining sites is disingenuous, because once you build a solar plant the mining stops. Once you build a nuclear plant, the mining begins-- and continues until we run out of uranium. It's already in short supply, and they are having to dig up more acres to obtain smaller quantities of it every year. And, guess what? Last time I checked, silica mine don't spew deadly radiation throughout the land and permanently poison aquifers. They don't produce tons of radioactive waste, as a uranium mine does, and the solar generating station produces no such deadly waste either.

Please explain this to your "dead" friend...

[Dead_Parrot]

26. Again, Fail.

Try to spend less time looking up humorous cartoons, and more time looking up life cycle emissions.

[FREEWILL56]

30. Billions are not being spent in solar research and I'll say more research

and $ for nuclear has been the case. There are rebates in some areas for solar, but they don't compare to the vast amounts given to keep nuclear plants going. Don't get me wrong here as nuclear is a viable source of power, but it is not cheap and safe and it is not waste free. Both solar and nuclear are expensive, but nuclear has the heavier supplemental funding and solar has no pollution or waste, though it has other limitations. There are no single answers here for our power problems and I have experience in both the nuclear and solar fields.

[Dead_Parrot]

32. Here's an interesting chart:

Sums up the nuclear vs solar research funding in an eyeful.

What's really interesting, though, is that solar seems to have had as much money thrown at it at wind, geothermal, hydro (all flavours) and biomass combined. But if you look at the energy produced by these methods (here), each one of them outperforms solar by a huge margin: The only exception is wave & tidal, which is barely off the drawing board but evidently catching up fast.

Collectively, these technologies produce 1,257 as much energy as solar, or 218 times as much if you ignore hydro (which had a head start over the others).

So, whilst it may be true that solar isn't significant because we haven't thrown enough money at yet, it may also be true that solar isn't significant because it's crap. If we'd have thrown those billions at geothermal or ocean currents who knows where we'd be...

[losthills]

33. I thought this was supposed to be interesting?

Oh, well, more false advertising....

[Dead_Parrot]

34. It's called "data"

You wouldn't understand.