3 ms·

>You mention underfunded, but not overfunded. >The civilian nuclear reactor operators in the US used to have to pay to a waste disposal fund, that currently has

>You mention underfunded, but not overfunded. >The civilian nuclear reactor operators in the US used to have to pay to a waste disposal fund, that currently has more than $44 BN The fund is supposed to finance Yucca Mountain but the current estimated cost of Yucca Mountain is over twice that at 96 bn: https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/wr-yucca_mountain_cost_estimate_rises_to_96_billion_dollars-0608085.html#:~:text=The%20US%20Department%20of%20Energy,repository%20at%20Yucca%20Mountain%2C%20Nevada https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/wr-yucca_mountain_cost_es.... Furthermore, those 44 billion won't even cover 10 years of the current running costs of handling waste, even accounting for interests. https://sustainability.stanford.edu/news/steep-costs-nuclear-waste-us https://sustainability.stanford.edu/news/steep-costs-nuclear... So it seems the US fund is in fact massively underfunded, not overfunded, do you agree or am I missing something? >It's like saying that every state in the US needs to have a waste facility. One is enough. Every country that operates nuclear plants needs to manage the waste for at least a while. Currently most of them do so for the foreseeable future at the site where there is, or has ever been, a nuclear plant. >Plus, in the not so distant future we'll be able to significantly reduce the amount of high level waste by burning the actinides in it But if we can already now generate gas from solar panels cheaper than we can operate nuclear plants, why can't we put our efforts into that instead? Why does it HAVE to be nuclear at any cost? An infrastructure that is massively overprovisioned from solar and other green sources and converts overproduction to gas whenever there is overproduction will be a gift to the future like hydropower dams have been (electricity-wise anyway). Once the investment is paid off it will keep giving cheap, reliable, distributed, failsafe electricity forever. That's better than even the most optimistic speculation for what can be done with nuclear.

credit_guy 3y ago
> So it seems the US fund is in fact massively underfunded, not overfunded, do you agree or am I missing something? Let's take that 96 billion at face value. I don't see why it needs to be so many times higher than WIPP, that handles more waste, but whatever, it's the official estimate of the DOE, from 2008. Here's another statement from the DOE in 2011, stating that they find the current fee (0.1 cents per kWh) to be adequate. The fee put on hold in 2017 due to a Federal Court ruling that the Government can't collect that fee and do nothing with it. If the Yuca Montain repository project is restarted, then one can see the fee being reinstated, and there's a good chance the fee that was uncollected over the last 7 years will be collected in arrears. > Why does it HAVE to be nuclear at any cost? It looks to me it's the other way round. I never heard a pro-nuclear guy (I'm one) saying don't build solar or wind. It's the anti-nuclear guys (presumaby you're one) that say "DO NOT BUILD NUCLEAR". Or am I missing something?
- Kon5ole 3y ago
  >It looks to me it's the other way round. I never heard a pro-nuclear guy (I'm one) saying don't build solar or wind. It's the anti-nuclear guys (presumaby you're one) that say "DO NOT BUILD NUCLEAR". Or am I missing something? That's true, I'm basically saying do not build nuclear. But I feel like I have investigated it with an open mind, looked at the facts and reached the logical conclusion that spending money on nuclear infrastructure is a mistake. Basically I am convinced that we can add more stable energy with less downsides in shorter time to the grid using other means than building nuclear plants. And the money we need to do that comes from the same purse that finances nuclear.
  - credit_guy 3y ago
    I agree with you. But here we were not talking about building new nuclear. We were talking about discontinuing existing nuclear. In my state, New York, they decommissioned two perfectly good gigawatt reactors in 2020 and 2021. The idea was to replace them with renewables. Guess what? They build 3 natural gas power plants and replaced 2 GW worth of zero carbon electricity with 1.8 GW worth of emissions. > As a result of the permanent shutdown of the plant, three new natural-gas fired power plants: Bayonne Energy Center, CPV Valley Energy Center, and Cricket Valley Energy Center were built, with a total capacity of 1.8 GW, replacing 90% of the 2.0 GW of carbon-free electricity previously generated by the plant. As a consequence, New York is expected to struggle to meet its climate goals. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Point_Energy_Center https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Point_Energy_Center
    - Kon5ole 3y ago
      >But here we were not talking about building new nuclear. We were talking about discontinuing existing nuclear. That's a fair point. The main argument in support of nuclear I can agree with is that once you've had nuclear operations in the country, you have to pay for it whether you continue or not, so you might as well continue. Some profit is better than no profit. But even that argument depends on whether existing nuclear plants are in fact profitable, so it is still important to find all the hidden costs. Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting anyone ever replaces nuclear with fossil fuels. That said, Indian Point is interesting: Entergy (the operator) cited sustained low market prices for electricity as the reason for the closure of the plant. But the average price of electricity in NYC has been 50% higher since about 2010 than it was for the 3 decades before 2010. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/APUS12A72610 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/APUS12A72610 Why is an old nuclear plant unprofitable after 40 years despite electricity prices being higher than ever? One explanation could be that it was in fact never profitable, but the true costs haven't been accounted for until now. "We assumed the problem would go away but it hasn't and now it's kind of expensive". This explanation also fits for France, who recently increased their state-dictated prices for nuclear from 44 euros per MWh to 70. Nuclear power estimates seems to get more expensive over time - which makes no sense unless the true costs were actually unknown/ignored when the initial estimates were made. That's the theory that makes the most sense to me at the moment anyway, even though it might be a bit speculative. If New York starts synthesizing hydrogen, they can use the new gas plants with up to 50% hydrogen in the mix with little or no alteration. At least that's something...

credit_guy 3y ago

> So it seems the US fund is in fact massively underfunded, not overfunded, do you agree or am I missing something? Let's take that 96 billion at face value. I don't see why it needs to be so many times higher than WIPP, that handles more waste, but whatever, it's the official estimate of the DOE, from 2008. Here's another statement from the DOE in 2011, stating that they find the current fee (0.1 cents per kWh) to be adequate. The fee put on hold in 2017 due to a Federal Court ruling that the Government can't collect that fee and do nothing with it. If the Yuca Montain repository project is restarted, then one can see the fee being reinstated, and there's a good chance the fee that was uncollected over the last 7 years will be collected in arrears. > Why does it HAVE to be nuclear at any cost? It looks to me it's the other way round. I never heard a pro-nuclear guy (I'm one) saying don't build solar or wind. It's the anti-nuclear guys (presumaby you're one) that say "DO NOT BUILD NUCLEAR". Or am I missing something?

Kon5ole 3y ago
>It looks to me it's the other way round. I never heard a pro-nuclear guy (I'm one) saying don't build solar or wind. It's the anti-nuclear guys (presumaby you're one) that say "DO NOT BUILD NUCLEAR". Or am I missing something? That's true, I'm basically saying do not build nuclear. But I feel like I have investigated it with an open mind, looked at the facts and reached the logical conclusion that spending money on nuclear infrastructure is a mistake. Basically I am convinced that we can add more stable energy with less downsides in shorter time to the grid using other means than building nuclear plants. And the money we need to do that comes from the same purse that finances nuclear.
- credit_guy 3y ago
  I agree with you. But here we were not talking about building new nuclear. We were talking about discontinuing existing nuclear. In my state, New York, they decommissioned two perfectly good gigawatt reactors in 2020 and 2021. The idea was to replace them with renewables. Guess what? They build 3 natural gas power plants and replaced 2 GW worth of zero carbon electricity with 1.8 GW worth of emissions. > As a result of the permanent shutdown of the plant, three new natural-gas fired power plants: Bayonne Energy Center, CPV Valley Energy Center, and Cricket Valley Energy Center were built, with a total capacity of 1.8 GW, replacing 90% of the 2.0 GW of carbon-free electricity previously generated by the plant. As a consequence, New York is expected to struggle to meet its climate goals. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Point_Energy_Center https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Point_Energy_Center
  - Kon5ole 3y ago
    >But here we were not talking about building new nuclear. We were talking about discontinuing existing nuclear. That's a fair point. The main argument in support of nuclear I can agree with is that once you've had nuclear operations in the country, you have to pay for it whether you continue or not, so you might as well continue. Some profit is better than no profit. But even that argument depends on whether existing nuclear plants are in fact profitable, so it is still important to find all the hidden costs. Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting anyone ever replaces nuclear with fossil fuels. That said, Indian Point is interesting: Entergy (the operator) cited sustained low market prices for electricity as the reason for the closure of the plant. But the average price of electricity in NYC has been 50% higher since about 2010 than it was for the 3 decades before 2010. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/APUS12A72610 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/APUS12A72610 Why is an old nuclear plant unprofitable after 40 years despite electricity prices being higher than ever? One explanation could be that it was in fact never profitable, but the true costs haven't been accounted for until now. "We assumed the problem would go away but it hasn't and now it's kind of expensive". This explanation also fits for France, who recently increased their state-dictated prices for nuclear from 44 euros per MWh to 70. Nuclear power estimates seems to get more expensive over time - which makes no sense unless the true costs were actually unknown/ignored when the initial estimates were made. That's the theory that makes the most sense to me at the moment anyway, even though it might be a bit speculative. If New York starts synthesizing hydrogen, they can use the new gas plants with up to 50% hydrogen in the mix with little or no alteration. At least that's something...