Nuclear Energy Fans: It's Socialism!!

[boutons_deux]

http://solveclimate.com/blog/20100916/u-s-nuclear-industry-will-remain-ward-state-france-report-warns

===========

This article seems to mention only the building costs, but what about costs of:

insurance? US taxpayers are liable for insurance claims over a capped liability for private insurers.

capital costs? Will Wall St lend the money? At what interest rate? Will loans go into the derivatives casino?

Mining costs? including land/air/water pollution/remediation?

Fuel cost + availablity?

Waste disposal

[DarrinS]

lol solveclimate.com

[boutons_deux]

Thank you for your enlightened contribution. Always brilliant

[CosmicCowboy]

The "Vermont Law School Institute" ?

:lmao

Now THAT'S a paragon of scientific credibility...:lol:lol:lol

[boutons_deux]

The Hits Just Keep Coming.

[ChumpDumper]

The "Vermont Law School Institute" ?

:lmao

Now THAT'S a paragon of scientific credibility...:lol:lol:lolIt's more a question of policy than science -- so yeah, this isn't a stretch.

[boutons_deux]

What's Fox Repug Progaganda's Policy Research Unit have to say?

(whatever Roger Ailes tells them to say)

[CosmicCowboy]

Oh please. Clearly written with an anti-nuclear bias and was drawing conclusions with no factual basis.

example?

“The idea that future costs will decline with standardization and economies of scale is a big selling point, that big subsidies now will bring a future cost decline,” Cooper said. “That it simply not the case.”

[Oh, Gee!!]

The "Vermont Law School Institute" ?

:lmao

Now THAT'S a paragon of scientific credibility...:lol:lol:lol

they're looking at the policy side/tax (legal), and not the scientific side.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Oh please. Clearly written with an anti-nuclear bias and was drawing conclusions with no factual basis.

example?

“The idea that future costs will decline with standardization and economies of scale is a big selling point, that big subsidies now will bring a future cost decline,” Cooper said. “That it simply not the case.”

extrapolation from the french model. so there is some basis for his assertion. you may disagree.

[CosmicCowboy]

Mush of the obscene cost of nuclear reactors is the design/approval process and the fact that every single one is a one of a kind plant and all work is custom fabricated on site.

Come up with a standardized 1000mw plant plan and get it approved. Reproduce that exact plan at every location. Set up manufacturing plant/s for the components and instead of custom producing one item set up and build it X50.

There is NO WAY there would not be efficiencies of scale/mass production.

[ChumpDumper]

Oh please. Clearly written with an anti-nuclear bias and was drawing conclusions with no factual basis.

example?

“The idea that future costs will decline with standardization and economies of scale is a big selling point, that big subsidies now will bring a future cost decline,” Cooper said. “That it simply not the case.”Show us a study that says it simply is the case.

And lol at "factual basis." You didn't read the report so you just drew your own conclusion about it without a factual basis. Good job.

[Wild Cobra]

Well, if it were implemented now, our socialists in government would do just that. Afterall, just look at Government Motors. The elitists want control of all the evil industries.

[ChumpDumper]

Mush of the obscene cost of nuclear reactors is the design/approval process and the fact that every single one is a one of a kind plant and all work is custom fabricated on site.

Come up with a standardized 1000mw plant plan and get it approved. Reproduce that exact plan at every location. Set up manufacturing plant/s for the components and instead of custom producing one item set up and build it X50.

There is NO WAY there would not be efficiencies of scale/mass production.Gee CC, has anyone done this before?

Maybe someone studied it.

[TeyshaBlue]

Oh please. Clearly written with an anti-nuclear bias and was drawing conclusions with no factual basis.

example?

“The idea that future costs will decline with standardization and economies of scale is a big selling point, that big subsidies now will bring a future cost decline,” Cooper said. “That it simply not the case.”

It certainly hasn't been the case thus far. Overnight costs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overnight_cost) have been rising steadily as the construction process has struggled to mature. Economies of scale, such as the French implentation scheme, seems to imply that there is no cost reduction role to be had as well as their overnight costs mimick ours.

I don't think that's an anti-nuclear stance as much as it is well reasoned arguement on one aspect of costs, IMO.

[ChumpDumper]

I don't think that's an anti-nuclear stance as much as it is well reasoned arguement on one aspect of costs, IMO.Right. There might not be much of a choice but to build more newcewlar plants, but might as well be honest about the costs.

[CosmicCowboy]

Gee CC, has anyone done this before?

Maybe someone studied it.

It's been done time after time after time after time. Nuclear power plants now are like the automobile industry was before Henry Ford. Every single one is custom. Mass production drives down cost dramatically.

[TeyshaBlue]

It's been done time after time after time after time. Nuclear power plants now are like the automobile industry was before Henry Ford. Every single one is custom. Mass production drives down cost dramatically.

Actually, you're quasi-wrong. There is a fairly popular design that is used in many installations and the cost spread is pretty wide when measured on a per kW basis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_new_nuclear_power_plants

February 2008 — For two new AP1000 reactors at its Turkey Point site Florida Power & Light calculated overnight capital cost from $2444 to $3582 per kW, which were grossed up to include cooling towers, site works, land costs, transmission costs and risk management for total costs of $3108 to $4540 per kilowatt. Adding in finance charges increased the overall figures to $5780 to $8071 per kW.

March 2008 — For two new AP1000 reactors in Florida Progress Energy announced that if built within 18 months of each other, the cost for the first would be $5144 per kilowatt and the second $3376/kW - total $9.4 billion. Including land, plant components, cooling towers, financing costs, license application, regulatory fees, initial fuel for two units, owner's costs, insurance and taxes, escalation and contingencies the total would be about $14 billion.

May 2008 — For two new AP1000 reactors at the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Generating Station in South Carolina South Carolina Electric and Gas Co. and Santee Cooper expected to pay $9.8 billion (which includes forecast inflation and owners' costs for site preparation, contingencies and project financing).

November 2008 — For two new AP1000 reactors at its Lee site Duke Energy Carolinas raised the cost estimate to $11 billion, excluding finance and inflation, but apparently including other owners costs.

November 2008 — For two new AP1000 reactors at its Bellefonte site TVA updated its estimates for overnight capital cost estimates ranged to $2516 to $4649/kW for a combined construction cost of $5.6 to 10.4 billion (total costs of $9.9 to $17.5 billion).

April 2008 — Georgia Power Company reached a contract agreement for two AP1000 reactors to be built at Vogtle,[18] at an estimated final cost of $14 billion plus $3 billion for necessary transmission upgrades.[19]

[ChumpDumper]

It's been done time after time after time after time. Nuclear power plants now are like the automobile industry was before Henry Ford. Every single one is custom. Mass production drives down cost dramatically.And the study for this regarding nuclear plants is where?

Thanks in advance.

[CosmicCowboy]

Another example would be trying to build a computer from scratch as opposed to assembling it from pre-manufactured components. There are clearly economies of scale in standardization and mass production.

[TeyshaBlue]

Another example would be trying to build a computer from scratch as opposed to assembling it from pre-manufactured components. There are clearly economies of scale in standardization and mass production.

There's not alot of manufacturing infrastructure building these proposed standardized parts. Were you to amortorize the costs of establishing such an infrastructure, they would likely offset savings for quite awhile, I would think.

[CosmicCowboy]

Actually, you're quasi-wrong. There is a fairly popular design that is used in many installations and the cost spread is pretty wide when measured on a per kW basis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_new_nuclear_power_plants

February 2008 — For two new AP1000 reactors at its Turkey Point site Florida Power & Light calculated overnight capital cost from $2444 to $3582 per kW, which were grossed up to include cooling towers, site works, land costs, transmission costs and risk management for total costs of $3108 to $4540 per kilowatt. Adding in finance charges increased the overall figures to $5780 to $8071 per kW.

March 2008 — For two new AP1000 reactors in Florida Progress Energy announced that if built within 18 months of each other, the cost for the first would be $5144 per kilowatt and the second $3376/kW - total $9.4 billion. Including land, plant components, cooling towers, financing costs, license application, regulatory fees, initial fuel for two units, owner's costs, insurance and taxes, escalation and contingencies the total would be about $14 billion.

May 2008 — For two new AP1000 reactors at the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Generating Station in South Carolina South Carolina Electric and Gas Co. and Santee Cooper expected to pay $9.8 billion (which includes forecast inflation and owners' costs for site preparation, contingencies and project financing).

November 2008 — For two new AP1000 reactors at its Lee site Duke Energy Carolinas raised the cost estimate to $11 billion, excluding finance and inflation, but apparently including other owners costs.

November 2008 — For two new AP1000 reactors at its Bellefonte site TVA updated its estimates for overnight capital cost estimates ranged to $2516 to $4649/kW for a combined construction cost of $5.6 to 10.4 billion (total costs of $9.9 to $17.5 billion).

April 2008 — Georgia Power Company reached a contract agreement for two AP1000 reactors to be built at Vogtle,[18] at an estimated final cost of $14 billion plus $3 billion for necessary transmission upgrades.[19]

These were all custom planned, custom built plants.

[TeyshaBlue]

Another example would be trying to build a computer from scratch as opposed to assembling it from pre-manufactured components. There are clearly economies of scale in standardization and mass production.

If a computer blows up, nobody's hurt.


Not so for a Nuke plant.

Poor comparison.

[TeyshaBlue]

These were all custom planned, custom built plants.

yes and no. Like I said, you're quasi-wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP1000

[CosmicCowboy]

If a computer blows up, nobody's hurt.


Not so for a Nuke plant.

Poor comparison.

Like I said...come up with ONE DESIGN everyone agrees is safe. Duplicate that exact design exactly every time you build a plant.

[TeyshaBlue]

To me, the whole point is moot until a realistic disposal framework is set up....not the hit and miss approach we currently employ.

I'm a fan of nuclear energy...I really want to see it happen in this country on a large scale. But, until we solve the disposal riddle, everything else is secondary.

[ChumpDumper]

These were all custom planned, custom built plants.Has any place in the world used more standardized reactor design?

If true, could the costs associated with them be studied?

[ChumpDumper]

Like I said...come up with ONE DESIGN everyone agrees is safe. Duplicate that exact design exactly every time you build a plant.Has this never been done before?

[TeyshaBlue]

Like I said...come up with ONE DESIGN everyone agrees is safe. Duplicate that exact design exactly every time you build a plant.

It's unlikely you could do that. Each region has it's own grid ingress issues as well as environmental concerns.

[CosmicCowboy]

1000mw is 1000mw is 1000mw.

[CosmicCowboy]

Has this never been done before?

no

[CosmicCowboy]

Has any place in the world used more standardized reactor design?

If true, could the costs associated with them be studied?

actually, the US Navy has probably come the closest to standardization.

[TeyshaBlue]

1000mw is 1000mw is 1000mw.

$3850/kW is not equal to $9500/kW.

[TeyshaBlue]

actually, the US Navy has probably come the closest to standardization.

What do you think are some of the differences in a Naval installation vs. Civilian?

[boutons_deux]

no factual basis?

when has the cost of nuclear power, building or delivering, GONE DOWN? here or in France, or any country with nuclear plants? The Finns have huge disaster right now with their latest build.

[TeyshaBlue]

Lifespan?

[ChumpDumper]

no


actually, the US Navy has probably come the closest to standardization.I believe your factual basis for these statements is false.

[TeyshaBlue]

no factual basis?

when has the cost of nuclear power, building or delivering, GONE DOWN? here or in France, or any country with nuclear plants? The Finns have huge disaster right now with their latest build.

I'm still unconvinced that cost is the ultimate metric for measuring success....and even then, it's irrelevant if we cannot dispose of the waste successfully for the long term.

[CosmicCowboy]

What do you think are some of the differences in a Naval installation vs. Civilian?

Example...building 30 identical Virginia class nuclear submarines as opposed to building 30 custom nuclear submarines.

[TeyshaBlue]

Example...building 30 identical Virginia class nuclear submarines as opposed to building 30 custom nuclear submarines.

Tell me, what are the differences in building a nuke plant for a submarine vs. a nuke plant for civilian use?

[CosmicCowboy]

I believe your factual basis for these statements is false.

I believe you are just talking out your ass to be irritating.

[ChumpDumper]

I believe you are just talking out your ass to be irritating.No. More standardized examples have already been pointed out to you by the OP article and TeyshaBlue.

Perhaps you didn't read them or just chose to ignore them.

[CosmicCowboy]

No. More standardized examples have already been pointed out to you by the OP article and TeyshaBlue.

Perhaps you didn't read them or just chose to ignore them.

None of them were standardized. Perhaps it is you with the reading comprehension issues.

[ChumpDumper]

None of them were standardized. Perhaps it is you with the reading comprehension issues.Perhaps you have an unrealistic definition of the term and also fail to realize there are degrees of standardization that already exist in nuclear plant design.

[TeyshaBlue]

None of them were standardized. Perhaps it is you with the reading comprehension issues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP1000#Design_specifications

The AP1000 is a two-loop PWR planned to produce a net 1154 MWe. [4] [5]

The design is less expensive to build than other Gen III plants partly because it uses existing technology. The design also decreases the number of components, including pipes, wires, and valves. Standardization and type-licensing should also help reduce the time and cost of construction.

The AP1000 will be manufactured in modules designed for rail or barge shipment. This will allow the construction of many modules in parallel. The plant is designed to have fuel load 36 months after concrete is first poured. This construction period is much shorter than generation II designs. If achieved, it should greatly decrease the interest costs needed to build the plant. Such reductions would make the design much more economically competitive against other power sources than previous generation nuclear plants.


Proposed standardization will no doubt help, but you cannot produce cookie cutter nuke plants for differing regions/climates/grid resources.

[ChumpDumper]

And hey, they only needed $8 billion in federal loan guarantees to build a couple of AP1000s in Georgia.

The free market works!

[TeyshaBlue]

Tell me, what are the differences in building a nuke plant for a submarine vs. a nuke plant for civilian use?

:sleep

[CosmicCowboy]

:sleep

I'm working on a bid right now. Later.

[ChumpDumper]

Kerekes and other nuclear supporters say costs of building plants will be stabilized by standardizing reactor designs and a streamlined regulatory process, but the VLS report contends that increasing complexity and individual site differences among projects would cause costs to continue to escalate, meaning a perpetual reliance of federal support. Nonsense!

All they need to do is hook a submarine up to the grid.

[clambake]

do you think we'll need iran's approval for this?

[boutons_deux]

And taxpayers will be on the hook for any nuke that blows up and costs go above $11B, sorta like how the govt gurantees mortgages against failure.

[CosmicCowboy]

Tell me, what are the differences in building a nuke plant for a submarine vs. a nuke plant for civilian use?

Submarines are more complicated.

[TeyshaBlue]

Submarines are more complicated.

That's only one thing that differentiate naval reactors from civilian. And, it's the least relevant.

[MannyIsGod]

I'm going to guess that cities will never be able to order nuclear power plants in a box that are set up ready to go and purchased at the local Wal Mart.

I'm no expert, but I'd imagine they have to be custom designed due to different safety issues at each location.

[Wild Cobra]

I'm going to guess that cities will never be able to order nuclear power plants in a box that are set up ready to go and purchased at the local Wal Mart.

I'm no expert, but I'd imagine they have to be custom designed due to different safety issues at each location.
I haven't followed along much, but a couple local talk show hosts here in Portland sometimes bring up the technology that one of the state colleges have developed. A design to be implemented anywhere, no possibility of meltdown, and produces power at a fair cost. If I recall, it's a pebble bed reactor, but I'm not sure if I remember that correctly.

This would be a cookie-cutter design. Sure, Wall mart's not going to sell it.

[TeyshaBlue]

I'm going to guess that cities will never be able to order nuclear power plants in a box that are set up ready to go and purchased at the local Wal Mart.

I'm no expert, but I'd imagine they have to be custom designed due to different safety issues at each location.

Doc Brown disagrees.:lol

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64/teyshablue/40-mr_fusion.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

Doc Brown disagrees.:lol

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64/teyshablue/40-mr_fusion.jpg
LOL...

Maybe in the future. If we ever found the right stable catalyst, who know. Cold fusion may become a reality. It wouldn't surprise me if it required a T-metal catalyst in it's anatomical state pushed to a 4:3 (16:9) super-spin. I have wondered if the limited unrepeatable success there has been had to to with a small percentage of super-spin atoms in the catalyst.

[TeyshaBlue]

I haven't followed along much, but a couple local talk show hosts here in Portland sometimes bring up the technology that one of the state colleges have developed. A design to be implemented anywhere, no possibility of meltdown, and produces power at a fair cost. If I recall, it's a pebble bed reactor, but I'm not sure if I remember that correctly.

This would be a cookie-cutter design. Sure, Wall mart's not going to sell it.

Yeah, pebble bed reactors are pretty cool. The fuel, containment and moderator are all combined into a graphite coated sphere about the size of a bocci ball. Because the reaction is largely self-contained, they present a far smaller risk of releasing radioactive material. They also are comfortable at extreme temps....1600f is not uncommon. I think the downside is that the actual mass used to house the fuel remains after it's spent...in otherwords, you've got a zillion of these balls to store and apparently they take alot more room to do so. Still, it's a very elegant design by all accounts.

[boutons_deux]

http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/index.html

[boutons_deux]

America corps, utilities have been pocketing profits rather than maintaining infrastructure.

People maimed and dead, homes are destroyed: San Bruno gas explosion, AFTER the CA PUC gave PGE its demanded $5M TWICE for pipeline maintenance.

West Texas wind farms have to be turned down when the wind is strong, wasting the energy, because the old, under-financed/maintained transmission network can't deliver the power to population centers.

American infrastructure that exploded after WWII is now 50 years old, and much is 100 years old, and needs maintenance and renewal. Corps won't pay for it, and there aren't enough taxes and revenues to pay for it. Americans would rather have a rotting infrastructure than pay taxes. The Free Market always delivers the Best Solution.

[MannyIsGod]

Obama had a golden opportunity to fix that infrastructure with huge public support for it and completely screwed the fucking pooch with the Democrats in congress. Ultimately fucker better accomplish something or thats going to be his legacy.

[RandomGuy]

Mush of the obscene cost of nuclear reactors is the design/approval process and the fact that every single one is a one of a kind plant and all work is custom fabricated on site.

Come up with a standardized 1000mw plant plan and get it approved. Reproduce that exact plan at every location. Set up manufacturing plant/s for the components and instead of custom producing one item set up and build it X50.

There is NO WAY there would not be efficiencies of scale/mass production.

I agree.

But then, whose design to choose?

Who gets to do the choosing?

What should the parameters of that choice be?

I also have little doubt that even so, there will be cost overruns. Efficiencies of scale will not avoid the lengthy court challenges that nukes will be prone to, and those challenges will add delay to any constructrion project.

All in all, I don't see nuclear as being all that cost competitive even with all of this. I tend to take the optimistic claims of any cheerleader with some healthy skepticism.

That said, I think we should do exactly as nuclear proponents say, and devote some funds that way. Energy sources should be balanced. Just don't kid yourself that nukes won't require some big bad gub'mint funds, just like anything else.

In building up the country's nuclear capacity, I would also want some very valid concerns about security, liability and waste disposal addressed as well.

I would also want some solid funds sunk into renewable subsidies at least on the order of magnitude of what is sunk into nukes.

In ten to twenty years, we can then see the results of that spending, and get some good indication as to how much generating capacity you can get for each dollar and adjust spending priorities accordingly.

My gut says that renewables and distributed power generation will probably be far more efficient over the long run, though. Distributed power generation such as PV panels, win out in a big way once one factors in avoidance of power transmission losses, in my view.

[RandomGuy]

LOL...

Maybe in the future. If we ever found the right stable catalyst, who know. Cold fusion may become a reality. It wouldn't surprise me if it required a T-metal catalyst in it's anatomical state pushed to a 4:3 (16:9) super-spin. I have wondered if the limited unrepeatable success there has been had to to with a small percentage of super-spin atoms in the catalyst.

Nah, it was Schroedinger's cat batting around the electrons.