3 ms·

> As far as I know building a long-term repository for the spent nuclear fuel is so simple... not a single nation solved it. The most advanced project (Onkalo,

> As far as I know building a long-term repository for the spent nuclear fuel is so simple... not a single nation solved it. The most advanced project (Onkalo, in Finland) may open in 2023. Back here in reality, there are several operating nuclear waste facilities: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_geological_repository#Nuclear_repository_sites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_geological_repository#Nuc... > £161 billion in 2017 https://web.archive.org/web/20170516093449/https://www.gov.u https://web.archive.org/web/20170516093449/https://www.gov.u... > £234 billion in 2018. Costs were so quickly exploding there is a new way to forecast, which dissimulates... err... is more... well... https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nuclear-provision https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nuclear-provision... Do you realize that these figures include cleanup from nuclear weapons development? > Decommissioning small and old reactors costs more, and entombing may, at least apparently (short-term), reduce the cost. In theory. Let's check a real and ongoing case: Oyster Creek. According to the EIA its construction costs were $488 million (2007 USD) ( https://www.eia.gov/nuclear/state/archive/2010/newjersey/ https://www.eia.gov/nuclear/state/archive/2010/newjersey/ ). As soon as the decommission project started the Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced that it will cost "about $1.4 billion to shut down the plant". Not for an immediate and complete decommission, because the plant will stay in a “safe store” condition until 2075, with dismantling ((...)) set for a period between 2075 and 2078 ( https://www.powermag.com/oldest-u-s-nuclear-plant-shuts-down https://www.powermag.com/oldest-u-s-nuclear-plant-shuts-down... ). Then new problems (costs!) may arise. Let's bet that, as usual, the taxpayer will pay and the real cost will be hidden. US: https://cleantechnica.com/2020/12/01/us-nuclear-site-cleanup https://cleantechnica.com/2020/12/01/us-nuclear-site-cleanup... Even if the pessimistic figures pan out and the existing nuclear fleet costs $70 billion to clean up, that's still within the $.4B to $.7B per GW range I provided.

natmaka 6y ago
> there are several operating nuclear waste facilities 22 sites. Theoretically "actives" ones are: - Olkiluoto which is in fact Onkalo (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant#... ) which is "expected to be operational in 2023." (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repo... ) - Loviisa which is AFAIK a site dedicated to the local reactors(?), and only for "low- and intermediate-level operational wastes". Onkalo is the planned site, and is NOT active ( see https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/finland.aspx https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-pr... ) - Wolseon (Korea) is for Low and Intermediate Level waste only (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolseong_Low_and_Intermediate_Level_Radioactive_Waste_Disposal_Center https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolseong_Low_and_Intermediate_... ). Its total capacity (800k drums) is far away, as for now it only contains 100k drums (see https://www.korad.or.kr/korad-eng/html.do?menu_idx=37 https://www.korad.or.kr/korad-eng/html.do?menu_idx=37 ) - the "Waste Isolation Pilot Plant" (New Mexico) is, well, a "Pilot Plant" (doesn't come as a surprise). Moreover "The waste is from the research and production of United States nuclear weapons only", and only for 10k years. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_Isolation_Pilot_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_Isolation_Pilot_Plant ). In some dream one may deposit powerplant waste there, however back in reality... "Back here in reality" (uh, uh) there is no active site in any huge nation which nuke-produces power for decades (US, France, Germany, Japan...) It will become more and more difficult for the public to believe that all this is perfectly managed, back here in reality. > Do you realize that these figures include cleanup from nuclear weapons development? Do you realize that the civil and military were so intimately tied during those phases that no one (even, in France, the supreme public finance audit authority, namely la 'Cour des comptes') can untangle the mess? > Even if the pessimistic figures pan out The UK had less than 20 nuclear powerplants and upon starting serious decommission they think that decommission costs will amount to at least £234b Even if (at best) only ~1/3 (?) will be necessary for purely civil reactors and sites that's ~£78b (~110bUSD) The US have 58 active nuclear power plants (96 reactors) (see https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/nuclear-power-plants.php https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/nuclear-power-pl... ), approximately 3 times more.

natmaka 6y ago

> there are several operating nuclear waste facilities 22 sites. Theoretically "actives" ones are: - Olkiluoto which is in fact Onkalo (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant#... ) which is "expected to be operational in 2023." (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repo... ) - Loviisa which is AFAIK a site dedicated to the local reactors(?), and only for "low- and intermediate-level operational wastes". Onkalo is the planned site, and is NOT active ( see https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/finland.aspx https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-pr... ) - Wolseon (Korea) is for Low and Intermediate Level waste only (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolseong_Low_and_Intermediate_Level_Radioactive_Waste_Disposal_Center https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolseong_Low_and_Intermediate_... ). Its total capacity (800k drums) is far away, as for now it only contains 100k drums (see https://www.korad.or.kr/korad-eng/html.do?menu_idx=37 https://www.korad.or.kr/korad-eng/html.do?menu_idx=37 ) - the "Waste Isolation Pilot Plant" (New Mexico) is, well, a "Pilot Plant" (doesn't come as a surprise). Moreover "The waste is from the research and production of United States nuclear weapons only", and only for 10k years. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_Isolation_Pilot_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_Isolation_Pilot_Plant ). In some dream one may deposit powerplant waste there, however back in reality... "Back here in reality" (uh, uh) there is no active site in any huge nation which nuke-produces power for decades (US, France, Germany, Japan...) It will become more and more difficult for the public to believe that all this is perfectly managed, back here in reality. > Do you realize that these figures include cleanup from nuclear weapons development? Do you realize that the civil and military were so intimately tied during those phases that no one (even, in France, the supreme public finance audit authority, namely la 'Cour des comptes') can untangle the mess? > Even if the pessimistic figures pan out The UK had less than 20 nuclear powerplants and upon starting serious decommission they think that decommission costs will amount to at least £234b Even if (at best) only ~1/3 (?) will be necessary for purely civil reactors and sites that's ~£78b (~110bUSD) The US have 58 active nuclear power plants (96 reactors) (see https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/nuclear-power-plants.php https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/nuclear-power-pl... ), approximately 3 times more.