5 ms·

The comparison of a happening with basically no longterm consequences to future generations like MH17 to nuclear fallout / necessary waste treatment is quite la

The comparison of a happening with basically no longterm consequences to future generations like MH17 to nuclear fallout / necessary waste treatment is quite lame imho. Nuclear energy without subsidies is not sustainable at all. Just do the math if you need decades to dismantle and decontaminate an old nuclear power plant alone.

doikor 6y ago
> Nuclear energy without subsidies is not sustainable at all And yet we seem to be doing just that here in Finland. The for profit companies operating and building the plants have been trying to get permits to build more (and very likely are going to get another one soon). Even with the "failure" of Olkiluoto 3 they seem to find a way to do it in a profitable enough way that they (2 companies TVO and Fennovoima) want to build more. There are no subsidies for nuclear power at all in Finland. Also our permanent spent fuel storage site is almost finished and should hold around 100 years of spent fuel. Though there have been now some talks to not really use it for most fuel as it makes more sense to build breeder reactors and just burn that fuel into much smaller amount. If that happens it will fit much more then 100 year of spent fuel.
- pydry 6y ago
  This reactor? >This month, the Olkiluoto 3 nuclear power plant in Finland was supposed to start producing power. Instead, the plant is at least three and a half years late and more than 50 percent over-budget. Olkiluoto was to be the “poster child” for the new generation of nuclear power plant designs that would drive the “Nuclear Renaissance” and if any nuclear project was going to go well. Instead, it has become an example of all that can go wrong in economic terms with new reactors. The vendor (Areva NP) and the utility are in bitter dispute over who will bear the cost overruns and there is a real risk now that the utility will default. https://web.archive.org/web/20130728115821/http://www.psr.org/safe-energy/the-myth-of-the-european.html https://web.archive.org/web/20130728115821/http://www.psr.or... There does seem to be another reactor being built in Finland, but it's being built by Russia.
  - rhodozelia 6y ago
    What’s your point other than people generally sell large projects with a low up front number and it ends up being higher. Investors don’t get the 3-4x return they wanted and have to settle for 2x. Or it takes longer to pay itself back. Solar and wind are expensive too if they are overbuilt 5x or backed up with enough batteries to be a firm source of power. How can anyone argue against nuclear being part of the solution of reducing carbon emissions just because it takes more imaginary monetary tokens to build? Who cares who is building the reactor? Russia and China have the skill and the will to make it happen while everyone else is wringing their hands and continuing to pump out co2.
  - doikor 6y ago
    > The vendor (Areva NP) and the utility are in bitter dispute over who will bear the cost overruns and there is a real risk now that the utility will default. With the contract TVO signed with Siemens and Areva for the plant they will never end up having to pay all the cost overruns. It was basically a fixed price contract. What ended up happening is Siemens got the fuck out of the deal (it was originally a Siemens and Areva joint project) and French government broke up Areva Group into smaller entities and took a hit on the failed project. From the legal fighting Areva agreed to pay TVO 450 million due to failing to deliver on time with some extra money going one way or another based on if it will deliver in the new revised timelines (ended up Areva having to pay TVO another 450 million). According to TVO at the end of the day the project cost them 5 billion instead of the original 3.2 billion with Areva saying it cost the 8.5 billion so Areva took a huge hit on making a bad contract and/or failing to deliver.
  - corty 6y ago
    Finland seems to have gotten the prototype, the same reactor type has been finished in China, twice: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernkraftwerk_Taishan https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernkraftwerk_Taishan However, also 50% over budget.
- Haemm0r 6y ago
  Where is the money coming from for the mentioned reactor? According to the wikipedia page a lot of French money is involved of a company connected to the French state.. edit: A breeder would for sure be a good way to reduce waste as you said..
  - doikor 6y ago
    For Olkiluoto 3 TVO got the original 3.2 billion from its owners and some loans. And it was a fixed price contract but TVO has given into Areva a bit and is now projecting that it will cost them 5 billion. Areva at the moment projects the total price to be 8.5 billion so they will be taking a loss on it (who is going to pay what part of the overruns was in some courts at one point haven't really followed up if there was some verdict and what it was) Funnily enough most of these loans are from German banks and various export agencies backed by the French government. Even still all these loans were given at market rates so EU would not kill the project (Greenpeace etc did make a complaint to EU and a investigation was done) This kind of seller arranging some part of the loans is very normal in large infrastructure projects like these. The other new project I mentioned is Hanhiviki in which Rosatom won the bidding. Areva and Toshiba also left their bids but as I understand it Areva was thrown out due to their failure to deliver Olkiluoto 3 in time/budget and Toshibas bid was not competetive. Though this Hanhikivi plant is still waiting for permits and there has been some obvious issues with it being built by Rosatom and the Russian sanctions going around. It also has some American and UK interests as Rosatom contracted the turbines to some GE subsidiary and Rolls Royce. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanhikivi_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanhikivi_Nuclear_Power_Plant
    - rhodozelia 6y ago
      In British Columbia Canada we are building a 1000 MW hydro plant called site C for 10-12 billion. We have been doing studies on the site for 30+ years and it will be 10 years construction time by the time it is finished. Nuclear looks pretty good in comparison.
nickik 6y ago
> Nuclear energy without subsidies is not sustainable at all. This is nonsense. We are basically using 60s technology that has some of these problems. A modern reactor facility could be 10-50x smaller for the same output and that makes think like decontamination cheaper as well. Also, these facilities can run 100 years potentially, so the amount of money required for decommissioning is amortized of gigantic amounts of energy. There is nothing inherent in nuclear that make it super expensive or unsustainable.
andbberger 6y ago
[citation needed]
torresmo 6y ago
> Nuclear energy without subsidies is not sustainable at all. FYI, oil & gas industry receives a lot of subsidies (just google it). On top of that, nuclear is extremely regulated compared to oil & gas. For instance, we have to capture and store nuclear waste. That's not the case for oil & gas CO2 waste.

doikor 6y ago

> Nuclear energy without subsidies is not sustainable at all And yet we seem to be doing just that here in Finland. The for profit companies operating and building the plants have been trying to get permits to build more (and very likely are going to get another one soon). Even with the "failure" of Olkiluoto 3 they seem to find a way to do it in a profitable enough way that they (2 companies TVO and Fennovoima) want to build more. There are no subsidies for nuclear power at all in Finland. Also our permanent spent fuel storage site is almost finished and should hold around 100 years of spent fuel. Though there have been now some talks to not really use it for most fuel as it makes more sense to build breeder reactors and just burn that fuel into much smaller amount. If that happens it will fit much more then 100 year of spent fuel.

pydry 6y ago
This reactor? >This month, the Olkiluoto 3 nuclear power plant in Finland was supposed to start producing power. Instead, the plant is at least three and a half years late and more than 50 percent over-budget. Olkiluoto was to be the “poster child” for the new generation of nuclear power plant designs that would drive the “Nuclear Renaissance” and if any nuclear project was going to go well. Instead, it has become an example of all that can go wrong in economic terms with new reactors. The vendor (Areva NP) and the utility are in bitter dispute over who will bear the cost overruns and there is a real risk now that the utility will default. https://web.archive.org/web/20130728115821/http://www.psr.org/safe-energy/the-myth-of-the-european.html https://web.archive.org/web/20130728115821/http://www.psr.or... There does seem to be another reactor being built in Finland, but it's being built by Russia.
- rhodozelia 6y ago
  What’s your point other than people generally sell large projects with a low up front number and it ends up being higher. Investors don’t get the 3-4x return they wanted and have to settle for 2x. Or it takes longer to pay itself back. Solar and wind are expensive too if they are overbuilt 5x or backed up with enough batteries to be a firm source of power. How can anyone argue against nuclear being part of the solution of reducing carbon emissions just because it takes more imaginary monetary tokens to build? Who cares who is building the reactor? Russia and China have the skill and the will to make it happen while everyone else is wringing their hands and continuing to pump out co2.
- doikor 6y ago
  > The vendor (Areva NP) and the utility are in bitter dispute over who will bear the cost overruns and there is a real risk now that the utility will default. With the contract TVO signed with Siemens and Areva for the plant they will never end up having to pay all the cost overruns. It was basically a fixed price contract. What ended up happening is Siemens got the fuck out of the deal (it was originally a Siemens and Areva joint project) and French government broke up Areva Group into smaller entities and took a hit on the failed project. From the legal fighting Areva agreed to pay TVO 450 million due to failing to deliver on time with some extra money going one way or another based on if it will deliver in the new revised timelines (ended up Areva having to pay TVO another 450 million). According to TVO at the end of the day the project cost them 5 billion instead of the original 3.2 billion with Areva saying it cost the 8.5 billion so Areva took a huge hit on making a bad contract and/or failing to deliver.
- corty 6y ago
  Finland seems to have gotten the prototype, the same reactor type has been finished in China, twice: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernkraftwerk_Taishan https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernkraftwerk_Taishan However, also 50% over budget.
Haemm0r 6y ago
Where is the money coming from for the mentioned reactor? According to the wikipedia page a lot of French money is involved of a company connected to the French state.. edit: A breeder would for sure be a good way to reduce waste as you said..
- doikor 6y ago
  For Olkiluoto 3 TVO got the original 3.2 billion from its owners and some loans. And it was a fixed price contract but TVO has given into Areva a bit and is now projecting that it will cost them 5 billion. Areva at the moment projects the total price to be 8.5 billion so they will be taking a loss on it (who is going to pay what part of the overruns was in some courts at one point haven't really followed up if there was some verdict and what it was) Funnily enough most of these loans are from German banks and various export agencies backed by the French government. Even still all these loans were given at market rates so EU would not kill the project (Greenpeace etc did make a complaint to EU and a investigation was done) This kind of seller arranging some part of the loans is very normal in large infrastructure projects like these. The other new project I mentioned is Hanhiviki in which Rosatom won the bidding. Areva and Toshiba also left their bids but as I understand it Areva was thrown out due to their failure to deliver Olkiluoto 3 in time/budget and Toshibas bid was not competetive. Though this Hanhikivi plant is still waiting for permits and there has been some obvious issues with it being built by Rosatom and the Russian sanctions going around. It also has some American and UK interests as Rosatom contracted the turbines to some GE subsidiary and Rolls Royce. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanhikivi_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanhikivi_Nuclear_Power_Plant
  - rhodozelia 6y ago
    In British Columbia Canada we are building a 1000 MW hydro plant called site C for 10-12 billion. We have been doing studies on the site for 30+ years and it will be 10 years construction time by the time it is finished. Nuclear looks pretty good in comparison.

nickik 6y ago

> Nuclear energy without subsidies is not sustainable at all. This is nonsense. We are basically using 60s technology that has some of these problems. A modern reactor facility could be 10-50x smaller for the same output and that makes think like decontamination cheaper as well. Also, these facilities can run 100 years potentially, so the amount of money required for decommissioning is amortized of gigantic amounts of energy. There is nothing inherent in nuclear that make it super expensive or unsustainable.

andbberger 6y ago

[citation needed]

torresmo 6y ago

> Nuclear energy without subsidies is not sustainable at all. FYI, oil & gas industry receives a lot of subsidies (just google it). On top of that, nuclear is extremely regulated compared to oil & gas. For instance, we have to capture and store nuclear waste. That's not the case for oil & gas CO2 waste.