4 ms·

Decommissioning costs, often neglected, are a ticking bomb. UK discounted provision for decommission costs: £100+ billion in 2013 https://www.theguardian.com/e

Decommissioning costs, often neglected, are a ticking bomb. 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. 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 in the US, 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. Long-term waste management is another ticking bomb. Moreover if there is a serious glitch (Chernobyl, Fukushima...), are bets are off. You can obtain an insurance policy for anything, AFAIK even for a space trip, but no insurance company covers such nuke risk.

njarboe 8y ago
Decommissioning the CO2 in the atmosphere is maybe a bigger ticking time bomb? People are irrationally afraid of human created radioactivity. If they only knew how much they get from bananas, granite counter tops, and airplane trips in comparison to nuclear power and scaled their fear of radiation down to that level, most of these expensive problems would be 100 times cheaper to deal with. How about a massive education campaign about radiation starting in elementary school? Kill the fear. Isn't the whole point of education is that an educated public can make better choices? Let's use that tool.

njarboe 8y ago

Decommissioning the CO2 in the atmosphere is maybe a bigger ticking time bomb? People are irrationally afraid of human created radioactivity. If they only knew how much they get from bananas, granite counter tops, and airplane trips in comparison to nuclear power and scaled their fear of radiation down to that level, most of these expensive problems would be 100 times cheaper to deal with. How about a massive education campaign about radiation starting in elementary school? Kill the fear. Isn't the whole point of education is that an educated public can make better choices? Let's use that tool.