6 ms·

Every nuclear power plant in the United States has been a money pit and produced the most expensive electricity. Not a single one has opened on time or stayed w

by athms 6y ago

Every nuclear power plant in the United States has been a money pit and produced the most expensive electricity. Not a single one has opened on time or stayed within its budget, and all have required government assistance. Plus, the spent fuel has no place to go, it stays on site in concrete casks, potentially forever.

ebg13 6y ago
> Every nuclear power plant in the United States has been a money pit Let's pretend that this is unequivocally true. Sometimes doing things for public health and safety costs money. It seems like the main question we should ask is "would switching to nuclear significantly save lives and improve the environment?". Most research says yes. See e.g.: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-d... https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy And since that's the case, then we can ask a new question: "Does your 'money pit' statement account for the benefits of reduced mortality and greenhouse emissions, or are you only thinking about the electric bill?"
- athms 6y ago
  >Let's pretend that this is unequivocally true. I don't have to pretend, it is true. Not a single nuclear plant in the United States has opened on time and on budget. Not a single one. In the 1950s, nuclear power was heralded as the cheapest electricity possible, so cheap that it would be almost free. Electricity generated from nuclear is about four times more expensive than solar and wind. >Does your 'money pit' statement account for the benefits of reduced mortality and greenhouse emissions, or are you only thinking about the electric bill? I don't live in fantasy land, somebody has to pay for it. I am already on the hook for PG&E's misdeeds. Having tens of nuclear graveyards, especially close to population centers is not a good idea when California is covered with active faults. Nuclear needs water and lots of it. Perhaps you are not familiar with California.
  - jerzyt 6y ago
    Can you cite any sources for this? And, the fact that a project didn't complete on time and within budget does not mean that is unprofitable for the rest of its lifetime.
  - ebg13 6y ago
    > I don't live in fantasy land, somebody has to pay for it. Well, I hear that the air force has so much extra money sitting around that they are working on yet another fighter jet. Maybe we could dig in the military industrial couch cushions a bit. "Somebody has to pay for it" is not the same as "we can't afford it". We absolutely could afford it. > Having tens of nuclear graveyards, especially close to population centers is not a good idea when California is covered with active faults. Given that California currently gets a third of its power from entirely outside of the state, clearly it's possible to build them not directly on top of the fault lines.
  - cbmuser 6y ago
    Don’t blame nuclear for corrupt and incapable politicians in the US. Nuclear plants are highly economic, at least outside the US. Every plant in Germany so far has already financed itself.
  - jabl 6y ago
    > Nuclear needs water and lots of it. Perhaps you are not familiar with California. Looking at a map, it seems California is right beside a fairly large body of water, the Pacific Ocean. Maybe you could place your thermal power plants by the coast rather than smack in the middle of Death Valley? Perhaps not coincidentally, both Diablo Canyon and San Onofre nuclear power plants are sited right beside the ocean, and use(d) ocean water for cooling.
    - athms 6y ago
      You concede you know nothing about California geography, climate, or politics. Perhaps you should look at a fault map of California. Diablo, the only nuclear plant still operating, sits on an active fault that wasn't discovered until 2008. Not surprising, many new faults have been discovered recently. The Hollywood Fault was mapped in 2014 and many buildings in Los Angeles sit on it. Zoning was changed because of that discovery. The coast of California is eroding through a combination of rising seas and sediment reduction. In 2010, an entire city block in Pacifica was red tagged because it was close to falling into the ocean. Many asked, why were these buildings allowed that close to the cliff? Well, in 1962 they were about fifty feet away. Perhaps you should do some reading on the California Coastal Commission. The consensus is we need to retreat from the coast. Let us imagine we can build magic nuclear plants. Where are we going to build them? Not Southern California. Well, maybe Camp Pendleton or Vandenberg, but that is federal land and they would be operated by the military. Maybe we can sneak one in the top of the northern coast near Oregon.
andbberger 6y ago
Maybe it's expensive because it's regulated to death. > Plus, the spent fuel has no place to go, it stays on site in concrete casks, potentially forever. Great! Seriously, there are zero problems with that. 'In fact, the U.S. has produced roughly 83,000 metrics tons of used fuel since the 1950s—and all of it could fit on a single football field at a depth of less than 10 yards.' [0] [0] https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-nuclear-fuel https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-...
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Maybe it's expensive because it's regulated to death If by “regulated to death”, you mean, “heavily subsidized and granted special liability regimes to reduce individual operator risk exposure”, that would be true.
  - cbmuser 6y ago
    A single nuclear reactor produces electricity worth 1 million dollars per day. Nuclear power plants are money printing machines, not money pits.
    - hyperbovine 6y ago
      So... 20 years to payoff assuming zero maintenance costs, downtime, or competing technical innovations. Sign me up.
      - strawberrypuree 6y ago
        20 years, or even 50 years, in the context of critical infrastructure and state level debt obligations is not that long. Nor is it sensible to consider “competing technical innovations” as if, say, solar and nuclear were mutually exclusive technologies. California can and should build both, now, and not wait for some other technology or price point to come and save us. You can’t breath money.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
strawberrypuree 6y ago
>Every nuclear power plant in the United States has been a money pit and produced the most expensive electricity. How much have carbon emissions cost individuals in the form of negative health outcomes? Diablo Canyon cost 14b in 2019 dollars to build and has been producing carbon free energy for half a century. The state's total spending in 2017 -- State and federal funds -- was $256b. The fuel could go to Yucca, or it could to go to Finland, which regularly takes nuclear waste. Or it could stay where it is just fine.
- athms 6y ago
  >The fuel could go to Yucca, or it could to go to Finland, which regularly takes nuclear waste. Did you just wake up from a coma? Nothing will go to Yucca Mountain because it isn't operational. Obama terminated funding in 2011. Trump has opposed reactivating the project and Congress hasn't funded it. This isn't surprising considering Nevada doesn't want to be America's nuclear waste dumping ground. There is strong opposition from its residents, including Native Americans, and state government. Finland doesn't take nuclear waste. It used to ship its waste to Russia (and the Soviet Union) for reprocessing. That stopped in 1996 due to legislation in 1994 that mandated domestic long term storage. >Or it could stay where it is just fine. Ah, not a coma, just stupidity.
robocat 6y ago
You are arguing against new nuclear plants. For an existing plant, what are the marginal costs and benefits of keeping it running? Your child comment: > Electricity generated from nuclear is about four times more expensive than solar and wind. Again, you are badly mixing arguments about sunk costs versus marginal costs.
- athms 6y ago
  There is only one nuclear plant operating in California, the twin reactor Diablo Canyon, owned by PG&E. They stated in 2016 it will close the first reactor in 2024 and the second in 2025. PG&E estimates the decommission will take twenty years and cost $4 billion. Of course, it will never be closed since the spent fuel will exist in concrete casks on the property. Since it was built in 1968, two faults were discovered, one a few miles offshore and another less than a mile inland. PG&E made structural changes to the plant in 1981. In 2011, PG&E told the NRC to hold the twenty year renewal permit until the company could do a seismic study in wake of the Fukushima disaster because coastal California suffers from both earthquakes and tsunamis. PG&E determined it was too expensive to continue to operate the plant and it could not take on the liability if a Fukushima type disaster happened at Diablo.

by athms 6y ago

ebg13 6y ago

> Every nuclear power plant in the United States has been a money pit Let's pretend that this is unequivocally true. Sometimes doing things for public health and safety costs money. It seems like the main question we should ask is "would switching to nuclear significantly save lives and improve the environment?". Most research says yes. See e.g.: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-d... https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy And since that's the case, then we can ask a new question: "Does your 'money pit' statement account for the benefits of reduced mortality and greenhouse emissions, or are you only thinking about the electric bill?"

athms 6y ago
>Let's pretend that this is unequivocally true. I don't have to pretend, it is true. Not a single nuclear plant in the United States has opened on time and on budget. Not a single one. In the 1950s, nuclear power was heralded as the cheapest electricity possible, so cheap that it would be almost free. Electricity generated from nuclear is about four times more expensive than solar and wind. >Does your 'money pit' statement account for the benefits of reduced mortality and greenhouse emissions, or are you only thinking about the electric bill? I don't live in fantasy land, somebody has to pay for it. I am already on the hook for PG&E's misdeeds. Having tens of nuclear graveyards, especially close to population centers is not a good idea when California is covered with active faults. Nuclear needs water and lots of it. Perhaps you are not familiar with California.
- jerzyt 6y ago
  Can you cite any sources for this? And, the fact that a project didn't complete on time and within budget does not mean that is unprofitable for the rest of its lifetime.
- ebg13 6y ago
  > I don't live in fantasy land, somebody has to pay for it. Well, I hear that the air force has so much extra money sitting around that they are working on yet another fighter jet. Maybe we could dig in the military industrial couch cushions a bit. "Somebody has to pay for it" is not the same as "we can't afford it". We absolutely could afford it. > Having tens of nuclear graveyards, especially close to population centers is not a good idea when California is covered with active faults. Given that California currently gets a third of its power from entirely outside of the state, clearly it's possible to build them not directly on top of the fault lines.
- cbmuser 6y ago
  Don’t blame nuclear for corrupt and incapable politicians in the US. Nuclear plants are highly economic, at least outside the US. Every plant in Germany so far has already financed itself.
- jabl 6y ago
  > Nuclear needs water and lots of it. Perhaps you are not familiar with California. Looking at a map, it seems California is right beside a fairly large body of water, the Pacific Ocean. Maybe you could place your thermal power plants by the coast rather than smack in the middle of Death Valley? Perhaps not coincidentally, both Diablo Canyon and San Onofre nuclear power plants are sited right beside the ocean, and use(d) ocean water for cooling.
  - athms 6y ago
    You concede you know nothing about California geography, climate, or politics. Perhaps you should look at a fault map of California. Diablo, the only nuclear plant still operating, sits on an active fault that wasn't discovered until 2008. Not surprising, many new faults have been discovered recently. The Hollywood Fault was mapped in 2014 and many buildings in Los Angeles sit on it. Zoning was changed because of that discovery. The coast of California is eroding through a combination of rising seas and sediment reduction. In 2010, an entire city block in Pacifica was red tagged because it was close to falling into the ocean. Many asked, why were these buildings allowed that close to the cliff? Well, in 1962 they were about fifty feet away. Perhaps you should do some reading on the California Coastal Commission. The consensus is we need to retreat from the coast. Let us imagine we can build magic nuclear plants. Where are we going to build them? Not Southern California. Well, maybe Camp Pendleton or Vandenberg, but that is federal land and they would be operated by the military. Maybe we can sneak one in the top of the northern coast near Oregon.

andbberger 6y ago

Maybe it's expensive because it's regulated to death. > Plus, the spent fuel has no place to go, it stays on site in concrete casks, potentially forever. Great! Seriously, there are zero problems with that. 'In fact, the U.S. has produced roughly 83,000 metrics tons of used fuel since the 1950s—and all of it could fit on a single football field at a depth of less than 10 yards.' [0] [0] https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-nuclear-fuel https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-...

dragonwriter 6y ago
> Maybe it's expensive because it's regulated to death If by “regulated to death”, you mean, “heavily subsidized and granted special liability regimes to reduce individual operator risk exposure”, that would be true.
- cbmuser 6y ago
  A single nuclear reactor produces electricity worth 1 million dollars per day. Nuclear power plants are money printing machines, not money pits.
  - hyperbovine 6y ago
    So... 20 years to payoff assuming zero maintenance costs, downtime, or competing technical innovations. Sign me up.
    - strawberrypuree 6y ago
      20 years, or even 50 years, in the context of critical infrastructure and state level debt obligations is not that long. Nor is it sensible to consider “competing technical innovations” as if, say, solar and nuclear were mutually exclusive technologies. California can and should build both, now, and not wait for some other technology or price point to come and save us. You can’t breath money.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago

strawberrypuree 6y ago

>Every nuclear power plant in the United States has been a money pit and produced the most expensive electricity. How much have carbon emissions cost individuals in the form of negative health outcomes? Diablo Canyon cost 14b in 2019 dollars to build and has been producing carbon free energy for half a century. The state's total spending in 2017 -- State and federal funds -- was $256b. The fuel could go to Yucca, or it could to go to Finland, which regularly takes nuclear waste. Or it could stay where it is just fine.

athms 6y ago
>The fuel could go to Yucca, or it could to go to Finland, which regularly takes nuclear waste. Did you just wake up from a coma? Nothing will go to Yucca Mountain because it isn't operational. Obama terminated funding in 2011. Trump has opposed reactivating the project and Congress hasn't funded it. This isn't surprising considering Nevada doesn't want to be America's nuclear waste dumping ground. There is strong opposition from its residents, including Native Americans, and state government. Finland doesn't take nuclear waste. It used to ship its waste to Russia (and the Soviet Union) for reprocessing. That stopped in 1996 due to legislation in 1994 that mandated domestic long term storage. >Or it could stay where it is just fine. Ah, not a coma, just stupidity.

robocat 6y ago

You are arguing against new nuclear plants. For an existing plant, what are the marginal costs and benefits of keeping it running? Your child comment: > Electricity generated from nuclear is about four times more expensive than solar and wind. Again, you are badly mixing arguments about sunk costs versus marginal costs.

athms 6y ago
There is only one nuclear plant operating in California, the twin reactor Diablo Canyon, owned by PG&E. They stated in 2016 it will close the first reactor in 2024 and the second in 2025. PG&E estimates the decommission will take twenty years and cost $4 billion. Of course, it will never be closed since the spent fuel will exist in concrete casks on the property. Since it was built in 1968, two faults were discovered, one a few miles offshore and another less than a mile inland. PG&E made structural changes to the plant in 1981. In 2011, PG&E told the NRC to hold the twenty year renewal permit until the company could do a seismic study in wake of the Fukushima disaster because coastal California suffers from both earthquakes and tsunamis. PG&E determined it was too expensive to continue to operate the plant and it could not take on the liability if a Fukushima type disaster happened at Diablo.