I don't have a degree in economics. I have the better part of a master's in accounting.
That means I understand cost overruns better than you might think.
I pointed out stuff from the Wall Street Journal, and what seems to be a fair estimate of the true cost of "going nuclear", and didn't rely on telling anybody how smart or educated I was.
If all you got is ad hominem, you got jack.
I want facts, figures and some logical responses.
From what I have read, that doesn't include the waste storage facilities, although that has hopefully been changed.
Next question:
Do you propose doing all this for all 500-700 new plants too?
If so, how does that affect the cost per unit of electricity generated from nuclear, smart-boy?
It doesn't take a fancy degree to answer that one...
Hundreds of guards for every nuclear plant?
Source?
(bet it rhymes with your-pass)
Let's run with this. 200 guards for one plant. Average salary and benefits cost per armed gaurd (remember armed guards are better trained and cost more than you might think), $40,000 each.
40k*200= $8,000,000 PER YEAR in added cost to generate power from ONE plant.
Multiply that times 200, and you get an added cost JUST FROM THE GUARDS, at $1.6 BILLION. PER YEAR.
Care to re-think that?
OkI don't have a degree in economics. I have the better part of a master's in accounting.
That means I understand cost overruns better than you might think.
Dude, you're going to be a college professor one day. No real world experience, just spout off what you know to be "fact" because you read it online.I pointed out stuff from the Wall Street Journal, and what seems to be a fair estimate of the true cost of "going nuclear", and didn't rely on telling anybody how smart or educated I was.
If all you got is ad hominem, you got jack.
I want facts, figures and some logical responses.
You still haven't answered either of my questions but rather just changed the subject. Have you been to one? Are you just assuming they are easy targets?
You also never replied to your new education on cost overruns regarding wind power.
All you do is dance around the subject, post ty links, and sit on a high horse that when knocked off, you don't even notice it because you are too busy being impressed with yourself.
I think we kind of derailed this thread into a Nuclear discussion. Honestly, I see this increase in gas basically the same way I see it in oil. Highly political, with a lame duck president on his way out and little incentive to do anything about it.
So companies are testing the waters to see what people are willing and able to pay, as opposed to what the market prices are. Once they find that limit, they'll try to stay there and maximize profits for as long as they can. In the meantime, we're just going to keep paying them what they want.
My money is in solar.
Well first off, they have to know what specific truck is carrying the material. There are many trucks right now, on the highway, as we speak carrying atomic weapons, waste material and other radioactive material. They don't advertise it and trucks appear as any normal truck would.
RG, you know as well as I do, that there is so much hazardous material being moved on our highways that if someone wanted to cause havoc they wouldn't have to pick one carrying radioactive waste.
You speak of wind/solar power, neither of these are completely reliable. Wind doesn't always blow and when the sun goes down so does the means to create power using solar panels. Unless you convert everything to DC or they come up with some way to store the power for use on slack wind days and nighttime.
Construction costs have been included in electricity costs forever, nothing will change.
Again, I don't know if this is the right solution, but I do know that you talk out of your ass regularly.
Who said hundreds of guards per plant?
Show me where I said that and I'll re-think it.
Now, answer my ing question you spineless . Have you been to one or are you just assuming they are an easy target?
Purchase cost of one Black hawk: $5,600,000
Per plant at 200 plants: $1,120,000,000
Given that one plant itself costs upwards of $10 billion, that isn't much extra cost.
BUT
again, you have to add that purchase, and all subsequent maintenance in as a difference between that unit of energy generated from nuclear and any other source. Figure 4-6 pilots, constantly running the engine to keep the engine warm for instant takeoff, possibly a second bird for redundancy in case the first one goes down, maintenance costs, bla bla bla.
Like I said, the extra costs just make it that much less compe ive versus other alternatives.
I'm sorry if this is some pet project of yours, but don't force your boondoggle on the rest of us.
I have other things to do with my money that waste it on ty ideas.
I'm not assuming it is an easy target, dumbass.
I am saying it is expensive to guard the things.
I know construction costs are included in electricity costs.
My point is that the cost overruns in nukes tend to make the ending cost per unit of electricity a lot higher than proponents predict.
My second point is simply a logical conclusion from this:
Nuclear isn't really cost compe ive compared to other forms of electricity generation.
I can't make it simpler than that.
Nukes WILL be built and they WILL be part of our future electrical generating mix.
BUT
It isn't *the* solution, I would say based on what I read, that it is a boondoggle of massive proportions. Certainly not worth investing trillions in.
There are better options to get more bang for the buck.
No. I have never been to a nuclear power plant.
I have toured a coal plant, and will get around to touring a newer gas plant with my son on one of my days off during the summer.
No, as I stated previously, I do not assume that they are easy targets. I do assume that it is expensive to gaurd them, and KNOW that the costs of gaurding the plant is not present in wind farms.
Given a few years to plan and survey, a properly motivated team of 4-5 people could easily figure out schedules of fuel/waste shipments.
One doesn't even have to get it out on the road. Simply wait for a suitable truck to show up at the gate of the facility and go for it...
I don't assume that wind/solar will be *the* solution either, for exactly the reason you described: reliability. They will be a large part of the solution, though, and certainly larger than they are today.
Storing the power will be where fuel cells will come into their own, especially for larger buildings. Charge more for peak power, as WILL happen, and these fuel cells will be economical, assuming energy gets more expensive.
The Air Force uses the black hawk and has people stationed there. They don't bill the plant for the cost.
Also, it's no "pet project", in fact, I don't have anything to do with nuclear plants other then help with materials. I just don't like you talking out of your ass.
Again, when did I say 100's of gaurds PER plant?
See, I can use big fonts to point out that you're an a-hole too.
See, that's an opinion that you didn't pass off as "fact", making you sound like less of an a-hole.
I've helped build a coal plant, neat aren't they?
Gas plants aren't all that exciting, but good money makers.
I'm sure it is expensive to guard them.
You know that Texas is building wind farms all over the place right? I hope it works out too.
But I couldn't help but notice that they are also planning and building a whole bunch of other energy producing plants as well, so I guess we'll just have to live with all of them.
I must go now and contribute to the massive over pollution of America. If I don't stop posting I'm going to drive up material costs all over the place from lack of production. SO take care.
(shrugs)
You implied it. Don't blame me for your inability to communicate coherently.
What exactly were you talking about when you said "100's of gaurds"? The air force base?
I don't think that each plant has hundreds of gaurds, but went with it.
I would guess that a standard guard contingent for a nuclear facility is probably more on the order of a few dozen, say around 40-50.
Either way, this is still a rolling cost that a wind farm or a solar collector, or even the solar panels on your roof don't have.
A government subsidy of the plant. That just makes the ultimate cost of the electricity produced at the plant hidden, and more expensive than the operators would admit.
Yes, we will.
Of course the "envirowackos" downwind from the coal plants they are planning on building aren't too happy about that...
The biggest environmental problems with wind is that they kill birds, and are something of an eyesore, both of which are fine with me personally.
Solar power is also something of an eyesore, but, apart from the pollution in building the thing in the first place, has almost no environmental costs.
We will get our power from somewhere, but there are a lot of things that are making wind and solar more attractive options.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 06-26-2008 at 10:30 AM. Reason: typos
I'm sure it is. The gas plant that I'm taking my son to has a couple of visible guards out front.
I am also just as sure it is cheaper to guard the coal and gas plants per MW produced than it is per nuke.
You can't make a highly radioactive bomb with coal or natural gas.
Actually, you never said anything about expense until that particular post.
Further adding to the problems going forward with nukes is the matter of security.
In the past nuclear plants have had some security, but post 9-11 a lot of them have had to ramp up procedures, and any future plants will have to be even more expensive due to security considerations.
If you try to make a facility safe from 15-20 guys who arent' afraid to die, with explosives, large trucks, and assult rifles, you have added a lot of expense.
If you try to make fuel and waste shipments safe from a similar profile of attackers, you have added a LOT more expense.
How do you keep a semi-tractor trailor filled with radioactive waste/fuel safe from even one suicidal nutjob with a rental truck loaded with 5-10 tons of explosives intent on ramming it?
If you think nuclear is the way to go, you MUST answer this question. I await the response.
That was the question you posed remember?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote