3 ms·

Those are fixed costs. The interesting question is what the marginal cost of adding another kg of nuclear waste is.

by ugh 15y ago

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.
      - eliasmacpherson 15y ago
        They are interested in keeping them running as long as possible because that is where their pay checks come from. Every additional day they run increases the risk of catastrophic failure, that is the point I am making. I don't see them as a valid or viable enterprise. The cost/revenue model of accounting is really stretched when it comes to dealing with the timelines necessary for proper nuclear disposal. I see what you are saying about how it is a tiny cost over that huge 30000 year period. Taking that period as given, do you agree that the years where the plant is operational are the most risky?

Those are fixed costs. The interesting question is what the marginal cost of adding another kg of nuclear waste is.

by 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.
    - eliasmacpherson 15y ago
      They are interested in keeping them running as long as possible because that is where their pay checks come from. Every additional day they run increases the risk of catastrophic failure, that is the point I am making. I don't see them as a valid or viable enterprise. The cost/revenue model of accounting is really stretched when it comes to dealing with the timelines necessary for proper nuclear disposal. I see what you are saying about how it is a tiny cost over that huge 30000 year period. Taking that period as given, do you agree that the years where the plant is operational are the most risky?