Nuclear Energy Fans: It's Socialism!!

[boutons_deux]

http://solveclimate.com/blog/2010091...e-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 Ins ute" ?



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

[boutons_deux]

The Hits Just Keep Coming.

[ChumpDumper]

The "Vermont Law School Ins ute" ?



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

It'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 Ins ute" ?



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

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/Economi...r_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/Economi...r_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.