8 ms·

Some quick napkin-paper math as far as how much electricity we could generate if this $16T was spent on nuclear energy: The levelized cost (that is, including

Some quick napkin-paper math as far as how much electricity we could generate if this $16T was spent on nuclear energy: The levelized cost (that is, including overhead costs of plant construction) are still lower than solar. Less than solar and about the same as wind, except that nuclear isn't intermittent which eliminates the need for energy storage. At $120 per megawatt hour, this $16 trillion could be used to generate 128000 terawatt hours of electricity [1]. Let's put this in more concrete examples. The total us electricity generation is ~1 terawatt. The Palo Verde plant generates ~4 gigawatts and cost $12 billion in 2018 dollars [3]. At this cost/capacity ratio, $16 trillion could be used to generate just over 5 terawatts. Over 5x the current capacity of the US power generation grid. What's even more impressive is that this is a one-off plant design, which is much less cost effective than serial plant production (like what the French did during the 70s and 80s) where a handful of designs are created but dozens or more plants are built using those designs. Granted electricity isn't the only form of energy consumption, but it is a huge source of carbon production that can be replaced. 1. https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/renewable/electric-generating-costs-a-primer/ https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/renewable/electri... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_of_the_Unit... 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo_Verde_Nuclear_Generating_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo_Verde_Nuclear_Generating_...

cma 7y ago
Does that pay for the insurance liability?
- manfredo 7y ago
  The amount that insurance will cost depends on how much we want to insure against, there's no fixed value for that. Currently each US nuclear power plant has a minimum of $375 million in insurance, as compared to total plant costs often in the several billion dollar range. If those estimates above didn't include insurance, the total cost would not increase very drastically Contrary to popular belief nuclear power plants have historically been the safest forms of power generation. Even more so if you restrict the analysis to nuclear power plants in developed western countries, where there are zero deaths due to radiation and only a few during construction. We could take 1/5th of the 16 trillion to construct the plants and have over 12 trillion left over to insure them.
  - cma 7y ago
    Insurance is only that cheap because the liability is artificially capped to $1billion by the Price Anderson Act, when in disaster scenarios it can far exceed that (Fukishima didn't impact a major population center and is already $187billion). There are many plausible multi-trillion dollar scenarios.
    - manfredo 7y ago
      That $187 billion figure is worthy of skepticism. Remember, the entire earthquake and tsunami is estimated to have caused US $235 billion of damage. That nearly all of this is going to reactor cleanup is suspicious. Especially when the 3 Mile Island meltdown and subsequent cleanup only cost $1 billion. It seems likely to me that this $187 billion figure includes damage caused by the tsunami, and is not specific to the nuclear meltdown.
      - cma 7y ago
        In Wikipedia it is broken down without the cost of the tsunami damage, though it is an estimate from 2016: >Japan's economy, trade, and industry ministry recently (as of 2016) estimated the total cost of dealing with the Fukushima disaster at ¥21.5 trillion (US$187 billion), almost twice the previous estimate of ¥11 trillion (US$96 billion). A rise in compensation for victims of the disaster from ¥5.4 trillion (US$47 billion) to ¥7.9 trillion (US$69 billion) was expected, with decontamination costs estimated to rise from ¥2.5 trillion (US$22 billion) to ¥4 trillion (US$35 billion), costs for interim storage of radioactive material to increase from ¥1.1 trillion (US$10 billion) to ¥1.6 trillion (US$14 billion), and costs of decommissioning reactors to increase from ¥2 trillion (US$17 billion) to ¥8 trillion (US$69 billion). Three Mile Island is one where the liability cap wouldn't have mattered so much, but compare Chernobyl. And compare plausible scenarios affecting populated areas depending on the winds, etc. The liability cap is so extreme, it is as if you had to only buy insurance to cover your healthcare deductible, and the government paid for all the actual insurance.
        manfredo 7y ago

cma 7y ago

Does that pay for the insurance liability?

manfredo 7y ago
The amount that insurance will cost depends on how much we want to insure against, there's no fixed value for that. Currently each US nuclear power plant has a minimum of $375 million in insurance, as compared to total plant costs often in the several billion dollar range. If those estimates above didn't include insurance, the total cost would not increase very drastically Contrary to popular belief nuclear power plants have historically been the safest forms of power generation. Even more so if you restrict the analysis to nuclear power plants in developed western countries, where there are zero deaths due to radiation and only a few during construction. We could take 1/5th of the 16 trillion to construct the plants and have over 12 trillion left over to insure them.
- cma 7y ago
  Insurance is only that cheap because the liability is artificially capped to $1billion by the Price Anderson Act, when in disaster scenarios it can far exceed that (Fukishima didn't impact a major population center and is already $187billion). There are many plausible multi-trillion dollar scenarios.
  - manfredo 7y ago
    That $187 billion figure is worthy of skepticism. Remember, the entire earthquake and tsunami is estimated to have caused US $235 billion of damage. That nearly all of this is going to reactor cleanup is suspicious. Especially when the 3 Mile Island meltdown and subsequent cleanup only cost $1 billion. It seems likely to me that this $187 billion figure includes damage caused by the tsunami, and is not specific to the nuclear meltdown.
    - cma 7y ago
      In Wikipedia it is broken down without the cost of the tsunami damage, though it is an estimate from 2016: >Japan's economy, trade, and industry ministry recently (as of 2016) estimated the total cost of dealing with the Fukushima disaster at ¥21.5 trillion (US$187 billion), almost twice the previous estimate of ¥11 trillion (US$96 billion). A rise in compensation for victims of the disaster from ¥5.4 trillion (US$47 billion) to ¥7.9 trillion (US$69 billion) was expected, with decontamination costs estimated to rise from ¥2.5 trillion (US$22 billion) to ¥4 trillion (US$35 billion), costs for interim storage of radioactive material to increase from ¥1.1 trillion (US$10 billion) to ¥1.6 trillion (US$14 billion), and costs of decommissioning reactors to increase from ¥2 trillion (US$17 billion) to ¥8 trillion (US$69 billion). Three Mile Island is one where the liability cap wouldn't have mattered so much, but compare Chernobyl. And compare plausible scenarios affecting populated areas depending on the winds, etc. The liability cap is so extreme, it is as if you had to only buy insurance to cover your healthcare deductible, and the government paid for all the actual insurance.
      - manfredo 7y ago