3 ms·

UK discounted provision for decommission costs: £100+ billion in 2013 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jun/23/britain-nuclear-atomic-clean-up-decom

UK discounted provision for decommission costs: £100+ billion in 2013 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jun/23/britain-nuclear-atomic-clean-up-decommissioning https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jun/23/britain-... £161 billion in 2017 https://web.archive.org/web/20170516093449/https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nuclear-provision-explaining-the-cost-of-cleaning-up-britains-nuclear-legacy/nuclear-provision-explaining-the-cost-of-cleaning-up-britains-nuclear-legacy https://web.archive.org/web/20170516093449/https://www.gov.u... £234 billion in 2018 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nuclear-provision-explaining-the-cost-of-cleaning-up-britains-nuclear-legacy/nuclear-provision-explaining-the-cost-of-cleaning-up-britains-nuclear-legacy https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nuclear-provision... ... and counting.

acidburnNSA 8y ago
If the linear no-threshold theory (i.e. if 100 people taking 100 aspirins each kills 100 people then 1 person taking 1 aspirin will kill 1 person) was reconsidered then it'd be ok to treat background-level radiation more reasonably. Then I think these costs would be much much less. To get here I believe someone's going to have to convince the public of low-dose hormesis convincingly enough (that is, if it's real) that they'll start making radiation dose appointments at the salon for health reasons.
DennisP 8y ago
Yes and nuclear plants in the U.S. already pay for that, and it comes from the money paid by electricity customers.
- natmaka 8y ago
  UK: 15 reactors, ~10300 gross MWe. They analyzed and now think that decommissioning will cost £234 billion (309 billion USD). USA: 98 reactors, 100350 gross MWe. 46 billion USD (Nuclear Waste Fund) are in provision. One order of magnitude more power produced by the stuff to decommission, and nearly 7 times less money to do so. Decommissioning small and old reactors costs more, and ENTOMBing may, at least apparently (short-term), reduce the cost. In theory. Let's check a real and ongoing case: Oyster Creek. According to the EIA its construction costs were $488 million (2007 USD) ( https://www.eia.gov/nuclear/state/archive/2010/newjersey/ https://www.eia.gov/nuclear/state/archive/2010/newjersey/ ). As soon as the decommission project started the Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced that it will cost "about $1.4 billion to shut down the plant". Not for an immediate and complete decommission, because the plant will stay in a “safe store” condition until 2075, with dismantling ((...)) set for a period between 2075 and 2078 ( https://www.powermag.com/oldest-u-s-nuclear-plant-shuts-down/ https://www.powermag.com/oldest-u-s-nuclear-plant-shuts-down... ). Then new problems (costs!) may arise. Let's bet that, as usual, the taxpayer will pay.
  - DennisP 8y ago
    The trust funds for decommissioning are separate from the Nuclear Waste Fund.
    - natmaka 8y ago
      Given that * "Approximately 70 percent of licensees are authorized to accumulate decommissioning funds over the operating life of their plants." ( https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/decommissioning.html#funds https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/d... ) * at least some plants will be closed ahead of schedule (it's already starting) => not enough accumulated funds * the effective decommission cost may be higher than planned (see the UK & Oyster cases) ... the Nuclear Waste Fund may prove useful as waste management is a non-neglectable part of a decommission. Will all the available funds be sufficient?
- dv_dt 8y ago
  There is a nuclear plant decommissioning line item in my So Cal Edison bill that confirms that customers are paying, but invalidates that a sufficient amount was collected during the operating lifetime of the plant.

acidburnNSA 8y ago

If the linear no-threshold theory (i.e. if 100 people taking 100 aspirins each kills 100 people then 1 person taking 1 aspirin will kill 1 person) was reconsidered then it'd be ok to treat background-level radiation more reasonably. Then I think these costs would be much much less. To get here I believe someone's going to have to convince the public of low-dose hormesis convincingly enough (that is, if it's real) that they'll start making radiation dose appointments at the salon for health reasons.

DennisP 8y ago

Yes and nuclear plants in the U.S. already pay for that, and it comes from the money paid by electricity customers.

natmaka 8y ago
UK: 15 reactors, ~10300 gross MWe. They analyzed and now think that decommissioning will cost £234 billion (309 billion USD). USA: 98 reactors, 100350 gross MWe. 46 billion USD (Nuclear Waste Fund) are in provision. One order of magnitude more power produced by the stuff to decommission, and nearly 7 times less money to do so. Decommissioning small and old reactors costs more, and ENTOMBing may, at least apparently (short-term), reduce the cost. In theory. Let's check a real and ongoing case: Oyster Creek. According to the EIA its construction costs were $488 million (2007 USD) ( https://www.eia.gov/nuclear/state/archive/2010/newjersey/ https://www.eia.gov/nuclear/state/archive/2010/newjersey/ ). As soon as the decommission project started the Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced that it will cost "about $1.4 billion to shut down the plant". Not for an immediate and complete decommission, because the plant will stay in a “safe store” condition until 2075, with dismantling ((...)) set for a period between 2075 and 2078 ( https://www.powermag.com/oldest-u-s-nuclear-plant-shuts-down/ https://www.powermag.com/oldest-u-s-nuclear-plant-shuts-down... ). Then new problems (costs!) may arise. Let's bet that, as usual, the taxpayer will pay.
- DennisP 8y ago
  The trust funds for decommissioning are separate from the Nuclear Waste Fund.
  - natmaka 8y ago
    Given that * "Approximately 70 percent of licensees are authorized to accumulate decommissioning funds over the operating life of their plants." ( https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/decommissioning.html#funds https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/d... ) * at least some plants will be closed ahead of schedule (it's already starting) => not enough accumulated funds * the effective decommission cost may be higher than planned (see the UK & Oyster cases) ... the Nuclear Waste Fund may prove useful as waste management is a non-neglectable part of a decommission. Will all the available funds be sufficient?
dv_dt 8y ago
There is a nuclear plant decommissioning line item in my So Cal Edison bill that confirms that customers are paying, but invalidates that a sufficient amount was collected during the operating lifetime of the plant.