4 ms·

And you base that statement on what exactly? I could as well say that I've calculated that 42 dollars will be enough to take care of all the leftover nuclear w

by bbojan 7y ago

And you base that statement on what exactly? I could as well say that I've calculated that 42 dollars will be enough to take care of all the leftover nuclear waste forever.

bildung 7y ago
Around where I live a nuclear plant is being decomissioned - for over 20 years now. The labor cost alone is over €1 billion. I'd say it would be wildly optimistic to plan for €2 billion per plant for decomissioning and waste disposal. The fund has $40 billion, but there are 60 commercial plants in the US. Even with the optimistic $2 billion per plant and ignoring scientific plants and interim storage facilities and Fukushima situations, there are still about $80 billion that are not yet internalized into nuclear power production costs.
- belorn 7y ago
  I wonder what the ballpark cost to decommission existing fossil fuel plants and install and operate enough carbon scrubbers to undo the environmental damage from oil, coal and gas plants.
  - bildung 7y ago
    Decomissioning fossil fuel plants is vastly cheaper because those are not radioactive. The obvious alternative are renewables, though, not fossil fuel plants.
- acidburnNSA 7y ago
  The nuclear waste fund in the US is for long-term nuclear waste disposal only, not decommissioning. Decommissioning is paid for by plant-specific trust funds that are also paid into throughout the life of the plant. In general, it's looking to be slightly cheaper than expected to decommission plants, and so there's a bit of a gold rush to access these funds. That's why you see stuff like this: https://www.ipsecinfo.org/2018/11/23/holtec-seeks-approval-to-buy-scrap-nuclear-power-plant/ https://www.ipsecinfo.org/2018/11/23/holtec-seeks-approval-t... This is another element in the equation of why nuclear plants are shutting down early.

4 ms·

And you base that statement on what exactly? I could as well say that I've calculated that 42 dollars will be enough to take care of all the leftover nuclear w

by bbojan 7y ago

And you base that statement on what exactly? I could as well say that I've calculated that 42 dollars will be enough to take care of all the leftover nuclear waste forever.

bildung 7y ago
Around where I live a nuclear plant is being decomissioned - for over 20 years now. The labor cost alone is over €1 billion. I'd say it would be wildly optimistic to plan for €2 billion per plant for decomissioning and waste disposal. The fund has $40 billion, but there are 60 commercial plants in the US. Even with the optimistic $2 billion per plant and ignoring scientific plants and interim storage facilities and Fukushima situations, there are still about $80 billion that are not yet internalized into nuclear power production costs.
- belorn 7y ago
  I wonder what the ballpark cost to decommission existing fossil fuel plants and install and operate enough carbon scrubbers to undo the environmental damage from oil, coal and gas plants.
  - bildung 7y ago
    Decomissioning fossil fuel plants is vastly cheaper because those are not radioactive. The obvious alternative are renewables, though, not fossil fuel plants.
- acidburnNSA 7y ago
  The nuclear waste fund in the US is for long-term nuclear waste disposal only, not decommissioning. Decommissioning is paid for by plant-specific trust funds that are also paid into throughout the life of the plant. In general, it's looking to be slightly cheaper than expected to decommission plants, and so there's a bit of a gold rush to access these funds. That's why you see stuff like this: https://www.ipsecinfo.org/2018/11/23/holtec-seeks-approval-to-buy-scrap-nuclear-power-plant/ https://www.ipsecinfo.org/2018/11/23/holtec-seeks-approval-t... This is another element in the equation of why nuclear plants are shutting down early.