8 ms·

Keeping old nuclear power plants running is not expensive, building them is expensive. Dismantling nuclear power plants is also expensive but there is no way ar

by ugh 15y ago

Keeping old nuclear power plants running is not expensive, building them is expensive. Dismantling nuclear power plants is also expensive but there is no way around those costs, anyway.

lispm 15y ago
See Fukushima for the cost of running nuclear power plants. The cost of the running power plant is deferred also to a future which then needs to deal with the waste from burned fuel. Germany has no solution how to deal with the fuel. The cost for that adds up every day.
- ugh 15y ago
  I don’t think the cost for dealing with waste adds up. It stays (pretty much) constant: High fixed costs and very low variable costs. Dismantling a nuclear power plant doesn’t get more expensive just because they are running longer. When it comes to waste, finding a site and building the infrastructure is expensive, the cost of dealing with additional waste from letting the plants run longer has to be negligible. Whether or not we have a solution to deal with the fuel is pretty much irrelevant. We have to find a solution anyway, there is no way around it. We might as well keep the plants running longer.
  - lispm 15y ago
    we don't have even a viable intermediate solution. Which would have to be built. The spent fuels are full and provide a new danger. See Fukushima on the effects of full spent fuel pools in times of an nuclear accident. Reactor five had also recently a loss of cooling for it. Currently much of the used fuel is stored on site. This has never been planned, costs additional money, and provides new dangers. Plus, for a storage solution it definitely makes a huge difference if we have to store the nuclear waste of ten reactors running ten years or of twenty reactors running 50 years. The cost is not the same.
    - ugh 15y ago
      This need is there whether we stop in 2022 or 2032. It doesn’t make a difference. Also: High fixed costs, low variable costs. It’s as simple as that.
      - lispm 15y ago
        Low variable cost? What? The current experimental Asse II site already cost us BILLIONS of Euros. Plus it is fucked up and needs to been evacuated for a few additional billions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schacht_Asse_II http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schacht_Asse_II
        ugh 15y ago
        Those are fixed costs. The interesting question is what the marginal cost of adding another kg of nuclear waste is.
        ljf 15y ago
        It's not just the nuclear fuel that needs storing you know: http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/w/waste-radioactive-nnp.htm http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/w/waste-radioac... Each plant produces a huge amount of waste each year it runs, all of various impact levels, but all of which has a cost to store or process. So yes, there may only be a small amount of extra direct fuel waste, but there is a lot more than that to consider.
        ugh 15y ago
        Sure, but that gets us no closer to knowing the marginal cost of one additional kilo of nuclear waste (of any description). My suspicion is that the marginal cost is quite low. All I'm saying is this: You likely can't take the average cost of safely storing one kilo of waste given current levels of waste and calculate the additional cost that results from letting the reactors run a few more years. This is econ 101. I like to use newspapers to explain the concept: The cost of making 10,000 newspapers in nearly the same as the cost of making 20,000 newspapers. This is because nearly all the money that has to be spent is fixed (wages for journalists and staff, buildings and machines, …). The variable costs are very low in comparison (letting the presses run a little longer, additional paper, ink, …).
  - TheAmazingIdiot 15y ago
    If the output of waste from a nuclear reactor is still that 'hot', they're doing it wrong. That waste then needs reprocessed for draining more energy out of it, furthering the transmutation to good 'ol lead. It'd be akin to burning gasoline with a 100% conversion output of CO. Guess what: that's incomplete combustion and you just lost a lot of energy. But that's what these reactors do all the time. If you can't get lead out of it, at least get something that only has a half-life of a few billion years. Then its about as dangerous as lead.
- Typhon 15y ago
  How many people died at Fukushima ? 1 How many people die every year because of coal plants working perfectly normally ? 30 000 in the US alone. See http://squid314.livejournal.com/292620.html http://squid314.livejournal.com/292620.html Nuclear waste is a bigger problem indeed, but using Fukushima as an argument against nuclear is both dishonest and stupid.
  - ugh 15y ago
    Expenses, not deaths, were the topic of discussion.
    - roel_v 15y ago
      We're talking full cost accounting and deaths are a large component in that. (well depends on how many deaths there are of course, in coal plants they're a big part).
    - alexqgb 15y ago
      Death is the ultimate expense.
  - Typhon 15y ago
    In that case, Fukushima is even less relevant to the discussion.
  - olaf 15y ago
    First, the Fukushima case is not yet closed. Tepco told us today (faz.net), that the three damaged reactors are stiil out of control, at least until end of this year. We will see, what will happen. Second: don't you ignore the risk of how many people _could_ die, in the case of a big disaster? That would have global conequences for quite some days (ironic). Even if nobody would die under normal conditions (nuclear and coal), the consequenences of a (more or less probable) big catastrophe (height of fall) are the main counter argument against nuclear power.
    - Typhon 15y ago
      >« Even if nobody would die under normal conditions (nuclear and coal » Except the point of what I was saying and of the link I gave is precisely that under "normal conditions", people die due to coal, whereas it is not the case with nuclear plant. The reason is that all a nuclear plant releases in the air is water. > « the consequenences of a (more or less probable) big catastrophe (height of fall) are the main counter argument against nuclear power. » You must take into account the odds of a probable disaster, such as an earthquake in Japan, but not the consequences of any disaster. It's just unreasonable to assume an improbable disaster will happen. You end up renouncing any technology by thinking that way. Obviously, Nuclear power plant must be built with security as the main concern. Obviously, a nuclear reactor can be very dangerous. But refusing to use nuclear plants, which are much more efficient than classic ones and a good long-term investment, is idiotic. We're far more likely to die in a car accident than because of radio-activity, or any other disaster that's on television. Yet, noone is suggesting that a country should be "car free". Until a better, safer replacement is found, we'll use cars, and nuclear plants.

by ugh 15y ago

Keeping old nuclear power plants running is not expensive, building them is expensive. Dismantling nuclear power plants is also expensive but there is no way around those costs, anyway.

lispm 15y ago

See Fukushima for the cost of running nuclear power plants. The cost of the running power plant is deferred also to a future which then needs to deal with the waste from burned fuel. Germany has no solution how to deal with the fuel. The cost for that adds up every day.

ugh 15y ago
I don’t think the cost for dealing with waste adds up. It stays (pretty much) constant: High fixed costs and very low variable costs. Dismantling a nuclear power plant doesn’t get more expensive just because they are running longer. When it comes to waste, finding a site and building the infrastructure is expensive, the cost of dealing with additional waste from letting the plants run longer has to be negligible. Whether or not we have a solution to deal with the fuel is pretty much irrelevant. We have to find a solution anyway, there is no way around it. We might as well keep the plants running longer.
- lispm 15y ago
  we don't have even a viable intermediate solution. Which would have to be built. The spent fuels are full and provide a new danger. See Fukushima on the effects of full spent fuel pools in times of an nuclear accident. Reactor five had also recently a loss of cooling for it. Currently much of the used fuel is stored on site. This has never been planned, costs additional money, and provides new dangers. Plus, for a storage solution it definitely makes a huge difference if we have to store the nuclear waste of ten reactors running ten years or of twenty reactors running 50 years. The cost is not the same.
  - ugh 15y ago
    This need is there whether we stop in 2022 or 2032. It doesn’t make a difference. Also: High fixed costs, low variable costs. It’s as simple as that.
    - lispm 15y ago
      Low variable cost? What? The current experimental Asse II site already cost us BILLIONS of Euros. Plus it is fucked up and needs to been evacuated for a few additional billions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schacht_Asse_II http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schacht_Asse_II
      - ugh 15y ago
        Those are fixed costs. The interesting question is what the marginal cost of adding another kg of nuclear waste is.
        ljf 15y ago
        It's not just the nuclear fuel that needs storing you know: http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/w/waste-radioactive-nnp.htm http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/w/waste-radioac... Each plant produces a huge amount of waste each year it runs, all of various impact levels, but all of which has a cost to store or process. So yes, there may only be a small amount of extra direct fuel waste, but there is a lot more than that to consider.
        ugh 15y ago
        Sure, but that gets us no closer to knowing the marginal cost of one additional kilo of nuclear waste (of any description). My suspicion is that the marginal cost is quite low. All I'm saying is this: You likely can't take the average cost of safely storing one kilo of waste given current levels of waste and calculate the additional cost that results from letting the reactors run a few more years. This is econ 101. I like to use newspapers to explain the concept: The cost of making 10,000 newspapers in nearly the same as the cost of making 20,000 newspapers. This is because nearly all the money that has to be spent is fixed (wages for journalists and staff, buildings and machines, …). The variable costs are very low in comparison (letting the presses run a little longer, additional paper, ink, …).
- TheAmazingIdiot 15y ago
  If the output of waste from a nuclear reactor is still that 'hot', they're doing it wrong. That waste then needs reprocessed for draining more energy out of it, furthering the transmutation to good 'ol lead. It'd be akin to burning gasoline with a 100% conversion output of CO. Guess what: that's incomplete combustion and you just lost a lot of energy. But that's what these reactors do all the time. If you can't get lead out of it, at least get something that only has a half-life of a few billion years. Then its about as dangerous as lead.
Typhon 15y ago
How many people died at Fukushima ? 1 How many people die every year because of coal plants working perfectly normally ? 30 000 in the US alone. See http://squid314.livejournal.com/292620.html http://squid314.livejournal.com/292620.html Nuclear waste is a bigger problem indeed, but using Fukushima as an argument against nuclear is both dishonest and stupid.
- ugh 15y ago
  Expenses, not deaths, were the topic of discussion.
  - roel_v 15y ago
    We're talking full cost accounting and deaths are a large component in that. (well depends on how many deaths there are of course, in coal plants they're a big part).
  - alexqgb 15y ago
    Death is the ultimate expense.
- Typhon 15y ago
  In that case, Fukushima is even less relevant to the discussion.
- olaf 15y ago
  First, the Fukushima case is not yet closed. Tepco told us today (faz.net), that the three damaged reactors are stiil out of control, at least until end of this year. We will see, what will happen. Second: don't you ignore the risk of how many people _could_ die, in the case of a big disaster? That would have global conequences for quite some days (ironic). Even if nobody would die under normal conditions (nuclear and coal), the consequenences of a (more or less probable) big catastrophe (height of fall) are the main counter argument against nuclear power.
  - Typhon 15y ago
    >« Even if nobody would die under normal conditions (nuclear and coal » Except the point of what I was saying and of the link I gave is precisely that under "normal conditions", people die due to coal, whereas it is not the case with nuclear plant. The reason is that all a nuclear plant releases in the air is water. > « the consequenences of a (more or less probable) big catastrophe (height of fall) are the main counter argument against nuclear power. » You must take into account the odds of a probable disaster, such as an earthquake in Japan, but not the consequences of any disaster. It's just unreasonable to assume an improbable disaster will happen. You end up renouncing any technology by thinking that way. Obviously, Nuclear power plant must be built with security as the main concern. Obviously, a nuclear reactor can be very dangerous. But refusing to use nuclear plants, which are much more efficient than classic ones and a good long-term investment, is idiotic. We're far more likely to die in a car accident than because of radio-activity, or any other disaster that's on television. Yet, noone is suggesting that a country should be "car free". Until a better, safer replacement is found, we'll use cars, and nuclear plants.