4 ms·
Cost. No, not the cost of construction, though that's fairly pricey. No, not the cost of production. That's actually the best part about nuclear energy. It's
by simonblack 6y ago
Cost.
No, not the cost of construction, though that's fairly pricey.
No, not the cost of production. That's actually the best part about nuclear energy. It's remarkably cheap and safe for energy production.
The biggest, costliest and most horrific thing about nuclear energy is what you do after you have finished using that nuclear power station.
You have, quite often, thousands or even millions of tons of radioactive waste to dispose of. Where do you put that? How do you dismantle the construction without causing contamination of the site and the surroundings for miles around? What about the medical costs of looking after the demolition workers as they develop cancers later in life?
But don't take my word for it. Look at Chernobyl and Fukushima. If the task wasn't so difficult, why are those disaster areas still existing? Chernobyl was nearly forty years ago. Fukushima was ten years ago. Still causing problems.
- airhead969 6y agoEx energy worker here. In the US, nuclear power plant projects live or die based on i) regulatory approval (social and technical approval) and ii) insurance. Insurance makes or breaks the project, and currently, there is essentially no way to move forward but in a limited number of circumstances.
- ec109685 6y agoChernobyl and Fukushima cleanup length and cost are a byproduct of this belief: "The official model guiding US government policy, both at the EPA and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), is the Linear No Threshold model (LNT). LNT says that cancer risk is directly proportional to dose, that doses are cumulative over time (rate doesn‘t matter), and that there is no threshold or safe dose.? The author points out that the danger of long term low level radiation is much smaller than what is commonly believed, which means that cleanup does not need to be as thorough and expensive.
- aeternum 6y agoThis is the big question. It seems to me that LNT is definitely wrong, there is a threshold. The question is.. what is that threshold, and how likely is it that biological system will actually trigger that threshold, IE food chains and other natural phenomena. Cleanup may not need to be as expensive as we thought, but isn't the only way to tell for sure.. loss of human life / cancer?
- simonblack 6y agoIt seems to me that LNT is definitely wrong, there is a threshold. The question is.. what is that threshold Coincidentally, my brother was a PhD in Zoology and his doctorate thesis back in the 1960s was whether or not there is a threshold for radiation damage on fruit-flies. His results indicated that there was no threshold. Radiation damage is proportional to the dosage. Nature, 1961 "Radiosensitive Stages in the Spermatogenesis of Drosophila melanogaster" - Strangio, V. A. The actual thesis is a bit too technical for my complete understanding.
- andi999 6y agoThe alternative hypothesis is activation, that is that low doses of radiation are actually benificial to organism. There seems to be some evidence, and that's why people sometimes deliberately inhale radon. Cf https://www.bad-kreuznach-tourist.de/en/health-resort-therapy-the-feel-good-factor/radon-therapy/ https://www.bad-kreuznach-tourist.de/en/health-resort-therap...
- nate_meurer 6y agoHinkley C in the UK is projected to cost at least £23 billion. Vogtle in the USA is projected to cost at least $27 billion. These construction costs alone could be what finally kills nuclear power in the West.
- asdff 6y agoThis is the U.S. $27 billion is chump change this decade. We pay over $3 billion per mile of subway track now in NYC.
- marm7 6y agoGreat summary. What’s your take on 4th generation reactors?