3 ms·

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 pow

by 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, …).
        eliasmacpherson 15y ago
        There is also a variable cost in allowing the old designs to continue to run that you are not accounting for.
        ugh 15y ago
        Building, dismantling and taking care of waste all costs money and generates no revenue. (Building a nuclear power plant at least brings with it potential future revenue. Power companies have no interest in dismantling plants or taking care of waste, it doesn't make them money.) Running the plant also costs money but also generates revenue. Especially old nuclear power plants (which are already written off) are profitable as hell. Why do you think are power companies interested in keeping them running as long as possible? Every additional day those nuclear power plants run decreases their cost/kWh.
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.

by ugh 15y ago

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, …).
        eliasmacpherson 15y ago
        There is also a variable cost in allowing the old designs to continue to run that you are not accounting for.
        ugh 15y ago
        Building, dismantling and taking care of waste all costs money and generates no revenue. (Building a nuclear power plant at least brings with it potential future revenue. Power companies have no interest in dismantling plants or taking care of waste, it doesn't make them money.) Running the plant also costs money but also generates revenue. Especially old nuclear power plants (which are already written off) are profitable as hell. Why do you think are power companies interested in keeping them running as long as possible? Every additional day those nuclear power plants run decreases their cost/kWh.

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.