Japan Earthquake

Japan Earthquake | Page 2565

@Edano , is not Wim Wenders a Dutchman?
by Peter 10/28/2011 11:36:59 AM

@Peter no, he is german.
by Edano 10/28/2011 11:37:23 AM

@Edano We would have to list all the costs involved with taxpayer funded activities such as the cost of the NRC per year (for US reactors). The nuclear industry and many power companies already tout their cost per KW but those numbers ignore all costs they don't directly pay. So the cost of a fuel rod would be in their numbers but the costs of oversight for the uranium mine and possibly the fuel factory would need to be added.

Maybe pick one US reactor as the test subject?
by lillymunster 10/28/2011 11:37:37 AM

@lillymunster per reactor would be the most comprehensive way. there must be a jungle of subsidies.
by Edano 10/28/2011 11:41:26 AM

Hi@all :), Peter, his full name is Wilhelm Ernst Wenders. Sounds german now :) Wim does sound dutch.
by Liz 10/28/2011 11:42:54 AM

@Peter @Liz is "Wings of desire" = "der himmel über berlin" ?
by Edano 10/28/2011 11:44:47 AM

ah yes, a wonderful movie.
by Edano 10/28/2011 11:45:51 AM

I didnt see it @Edano
by Liz 10/28/2011 11:46:47 AM

It would be interesting to know just how much nuke energy really costs @lillymunster. Its probably astronomicaly high. Laying the facts out would stop them from saying that its cheap thats for sure.
by Liz 10/28/2011 11:52:33 AM

@Edano It would be more straightforward on a single reactor. Subsidies would need to be found. There was likely an original loan guarantee, tax subsidies, local costs at the city level to manage evacuation plans etc. States that have reactors also have a state office dealing with nuclear power plants in that state.
by lillymunster 10/28/2011 11:53:39 AM

@Liz I think it would be worth the effort. I hear them trot that "cheap and clean" out and nobody challenges it. While we see the costs of the disaster in Japan bankrupting the country, the estimated costs for a storage site like Yucca mtn that nobody wants to deal with. What about the costs of the civilian programs in Germany and France to operate Strahlentelex and CRMS in France to tell people what food was safe?
by lillymunster 10/28/2011 11:56:28 AM

Also the US industry tries to only count TMI as a nuclear disaster. I think Chernobyl and Fuku should be included in any cost estimate. Take total costs and divide by all the commercial nuclear reactors. They happened in those other countries but it is really just random luck these accidents happened in those locations.
by lillymunster 10/28/2011 11:58:55 AM

How much does it cost to build a nuclear power station?
There are few recent examples to draw on, but a new plant being built in Finland gives some indications.
The Olkiluoto project is Western Europe's first new reactor in a decade and is expected to cost about £2.25bn ($4.5bn), but there have been serious delays there.
Other analysts put the cost of a plant at £1.5bn.
How does that compare with other types of power station?
Gas and coal-fired power stations are much cheaper to build.
RWE Npower is planning a gas-fired power station in the UK for £800m.
The controversial scheme for a coal-fired power station in Kent is expected to cost about £1bn.
So is nuclear power good value for money?
Nuclear power stations are extremely expensive to build.
But if several stations are commissioned at once, then the cost should go down because of economies of scale - a sort of bulk discount.
But they will still be more expensive to build than conventional power stations. And there are fears that investment in nuclear will detract from other sources of energy - such as renewable.
So how does nuclear power compete?
Once built, nuclear power plants have advantages.
In a gas-fired plant, the gas alone makes up 80% of the cost of electricity. So firms and consumers are very exposed to the wholesale price of gas.
But at a nuclear power plant, the fuel is processed uranium, accounting for just 10% of the cost of production.
One argument given in favour of nuclear is that consumers are less likely to see huge variations in their energy bills, which have been rising in recent months.
Nuclear power also produces much lower levels of greenhouse gases and the nuclear industry wants incentives to reflect that.
What are the cost implications of nuclear power?
Germany's E.On, France's EDF, and British Gas parent company Centrica have all showed eagerness to be involved in the operation of the new nuclear sites, while French-owned Areva, the world's largest nuclear power group, said it also wanted to build up to six new plants.
Energy companies running the new nuclear power plants will have to pay the costs for decommissioning existing sites, and pay their share of waste management costs, the government has said.
The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority has said the cost will be £72bn over 20 years - up from an estimate two years ago of £56bn.
Critics, such as Greenpeace, say that the bill for building new waste dumps will be a further £21bn and then £30bn to build the new nuclear power stations.
According to its figures, this equates to just under £250 per household.
It is unclear how much of this will be passed on to consumers through, for example, higher energy bills.
But firms keen to invest in this area have strongly rejected this argument, saying they will not need any sort of extra funding.
EDF, for example, has said it is willing to invest in new nuclear power stations in the UK "without subsidy", to include all the costs of construction, operation, decommissioning and waste disposal.
But it, like other firms, has said this can only happen if the right framework is in place. Ultimately, firms will only invest if it is competitive with other forms of energy.
Some analysts say public opposition might make some investors reluctant to fund schemes that are viewed as unpopular.
news.bbc.co.uk
by Liz 10/28/2011 12:18:42 PM

@Liz good find. I notice one flaw in their logic. They mention if people have to pay more through their utility bill. They are ignoring the cost you pay through taxes. Anything done by the govt to support that plant you pay for through taxes. This is a common dodge, ignoring a cost because you pay it in a different way.
by lillymunster 10/28/2011 12:24:04 PM

Going through the articles on the air and sea releases. I added up the sea and air numbers, these don't include whatever is in water on site or has sunk into the ground.

35,800 fuku air terabecquerels 42% of chernobyl

852.38 = 1%

85238 chernobyl cesium release

sea release
27.1 petabecquerels
27100 terabecquerels

sea and air combined
62900 terabecquerels

these numbers seem to only look at cesium
by lillymunster 10/28/2011 12:37:52 PM

Re: Costs of Nuke: Fla. customers will pay $282M for nuclear upgrades Customers of Florida's two largest electric utilities will pay $282 million next year to upgrade nuclear power plants and build new ones even if those projects are never completed. www.businessweek.com
by M.I.A. edited by lillymunster 10/28/2011 1:08:19 PM

These costs to explore the liscensing of nuke plants is S.O.P. The consumer often gets to pay millions for...nothing. Great business model- no-risk, no-cost (to company) development of new facilities. :(
by M.I.A. 10/28/2011 1:11:50 PM

@M.I.A. interesting point. How many projects start the liscensing process but don't become finished projects? I wonder if the NRC would keep a list of these somewhere?
by lillymunster 10/28/2011 1:12:57 PM

good morning @ all
by dean 10/28/2011 1:15:52 PM

good morning @dean
by Liz 10/28/2011 1:18:23 PM

Every plant that we've discussed which hasn't been put into operation has cost $. Missouri and Florida are both talking about burdening rate-payers with front-loaded liscensing fees. Guess who is partially funded by nuke plant fees? NRC, by statute.
by M.I.A. 10/28/2011 1:20:29 PM

Today's random pop culture funny. Mattel released a Barbie with body tattoos and rather funky clothing. Mattel is promoting this as a Japanese pop culture themed doll. I guess nobody explained to them how tattoos are viewed in Japan. kotaku.com
by lillymunster 10/28/2011 1:21:57 PM

License Fees The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is statutorily required to recover most of its budget authority through fees assessed to applicants for an NRC license and to holders of NRC licenses.
www.nrc.gov
by M.I.A. 10/28/2011 1:22:14 PM

www.world-nuclear.org @ all.. interesting bit on the fuel cycle
by dean 10/28/2011 1:22:38 PM

@M.I.A. NRC's funding system is a big problem and I think is part of the relicensing of old plants that clearly should not be.
by lillymunster 10/28/2011 1:23:11 PM

The cost of generating power via nuclear energy can be separated into the following components:

• The construction cost of building the plant.
• The operating cost of running the plant and generating energy.
• The cost of waste disposal from the plant.
• The cost of decommissioning the plant.
nuclearinfo.net
by M.I.A. 10/28/2011 1:23:13 PM

@lillymunster @lillymunster It smells like dead fish.
by M.I.A. 10/28/2011 1:23:40 PM

@M.I.A. The Barbie or the NRC funding system? :-)
by lillymunster 10/28/2011 1:24:13 PM

@lillymunster WOOt! Both :)
by M.I.A. 10/28/2011 1:24:52 PM

www.world-nuclear.org @ lilly.. this link has some links in it.. try the rae-report which has some interesting information on costs broken down for different plants
by dean 10/28/2011 1:28:54 PM

On a similar note (not the Barbie), there was discussion about the nuclear power company LLC dodge being used in the US. Power companies establish an LLC company just for that power plant so that the big multinational isn't at risk if there is an accident. The LLC goes bankrupt and everyone damaged by the accident is outta luck. The only requirement the NRC has is that they have $300 million in insurance.

I can't remember if there is any federal fund at all for accidents but this LLC game is in clear contrast to what we see happening with TEPCO and the massive costs.
by lillymunster 10/28/2011 1:29:43 PM

@dean Interesting, will give that a read. Can you think of other taxpayer costs we might have forgotten? I was assuming as far as the DOE goes we could look up what portion deals with commercial nuclear power generation and try to separate out that portion of the total budget to estimate their costs toward nuclear power plant real costs. NRC I would need to determine how much of their budget goes to medical nuclear oversight vs. commercial power
by lillymunster 10/28/2011 1:34:30 PM

www.world-nuclear.org lilly.. check this one out when you can.. toward the bottom it discusses the agreement between russia and USA to reprocess military plutonium.... "The USA and Russia have agreed to dispose of 34 tonnes each of military plutonium by 2014. Most of it is likely to be used as feed for MOX plants, to make about 1500 tonnes of MOX fuel which will progressively be burned in civil reactors."
by dean 10/28/2011 1:34:46 PM

@ lilly .. there are a host of other costs associated with the nuclear industry in building new facilities 1-there are very few companies in the united states that manufacture parts for reactors that have an N-STAMP.. ie,, ,special quality requirements for fabrication that meet stringent requirements,, bottom line is that the material for these reactors will skyrocket if more reactors are built, 2- existing plants need to purchase replacement component and then do a DEDICATION on the material which essentially allows them to use COMMERCIAL GRADE replacements
by dean 10/28/2011 1:38:43 PM

@lilly.. 3- the process of application for a permit to construct is a very very costly process and takes years at the current pace and NRC claiming they are understaffed as it is so, costs before first shovel of dirt to fab is a biggie, 4-I think the approach now day is for a utility to get money to fabricate which involves so many other factors and investors, then they build the plant (capital outlay) then from that point on .. they make money (profit) from each MWhr, AND additional expenses to upgrade, modify, meeting changing requirements, etc. are simply generated by increased rate payer rates... so it won't touch the mega money utilities make
by dean 10/28/2011 1:42:37 PM

@dean The MOX agreement doesn't sound like it could be met since the MOX plant is still under construction. It also sounds like they are going to make the MOX even if there is nobody willing to use it. The UK talked openly about doing this, making MOX and then storing it permanently. It seemed like such a stupid idea that is was shot down but they had a more public debate about it in the UK. Here most people don't know this even exists.
by lillymunster 10/28/2011 1:42:59 PM

@ lilly .. like I have said.. I never liked the MOX approach, sure it sounds good but I think there are other ways that would have been cheaper and provide the security needed to keep the plutonium out of the terrorists hands.. I think with the world economy many countries involved in MOX processing are going to rethink the whole plan.. it's just too costly
by dean 10/28/2011 1:45:39 PM

The email won't let me copy but North Anna is asking for an exemption because 7 of their dry storage containers have decay heat over the design range limit for those canisters.
by lillymunster 10/28/2011 1:46:46 PM

@dean The UK discussion pointed that vitrification and storage was much cheaper than operating the MOX plant for fuel or their hair brained MOX storage idea.
by lillymunster 10/28/2011 1:47:39 PM

I think ending the US MOX program is possible if all this info gets into the right hands. Get some outrage generated over government money waste and someone in congress will slate it for a budget cut to get some brownie points before the next election.
by lillymunster 10/28/2011 1:49:04 PM

@ lilly.. disposal of the military plutonium is simple.. just mix some of it in with the spent fuel storage containers..... no terrorist would live trying to get that out of the container even if they managed to open the door.. instant death
by dean 10/28/2011 1:49:37 PM

@all - I finished an article this morning adding up the sea and air releases vs. what they declared as Chernobyl numbers. I think it would be possible for the unaccounted for releases (basements, storage etc) and what has not been released yet but will has the potential to equal Chernobyl wp.me
by lillymunster 10/28/2011 1:51:03 PM

looking now
by dean 10/28/2011 1:53:04 PM

@dean I think that was the general idea the guy promoting storing MOX fuel had was if it is mixed someone can't just run off with it. But making it into MOX seems like an expensive way to achieve the same end result.
by lillymunster 10/28/2011 1:53:09 PM