One reason that it's so expensive is because the permitting process takes years and years and costs build up. Another reason is there is nowhere to send the nuclear waste because while the nuclear waste isn't weapons grade, the NIMBYism certainly is. I have no problem with building up our solar capacity, but one of the major inefficienci…
One reason that it's so expensive is because the permitting process takes years and years and costs build up. Another reason is there is nowhere to send the nuclear waste because while the nuclear waste isn't weapons grade, the NIMBYism certainly is. I have no problem with building up our solar capacity, but one of the major inefficiencies for nuclear is the roadblocks thrown in it's way at every step. As to it's safety, we have an entire fleet of submarines and aircraft carriers running on it, so apparently it can be done. I refuse to believe that there aren't ways to do that commercially.
I do not see how the long permitting process could add to the cost. They don't start to build until the permits are granted. I do not know about nuclear waste, but the cost of decommissioning is paid for with a small surtax per megawatt hour.
Perhaps, as you say, safe designs are possible, such as the pebble bed reactor. But the cost will be high, and once a technology falls behind in cost competition, it seldom recovers. Even if the nukes fall in price, solar will fall faster. It is the dominant source. It will be manufactured in far greater quantities, creating economies scale. Things like concentrated solar power (with mirrors) have also fallen behind and are unlikely to catch up.
The other thing about nukes is that although the fuel is cheap, it is not free. Whereas solar and wind have no fuel.
Anyway, the people advocating it both here and at the DoE consider the cost. No power company will install a nuke when it costs so much.
"I do not see how the long permitting process could add to the cost."
Jed, there are these things that are called lawyers, and they don't work for free. Every step of the process and anything associated with it involves lawyers. They get their fees.
Also, the long process causes uncertainty in the process. Let's say that we have an existing coal plant that will reach end of life in 2028. We can build a new nuclear plant by then and have it online to replace the existing plant. Now we introduce a five-year delay (not uncommon). Our choices are to refurbish an existing plant (costs money), build a new plant (costs money), or purchase power on the open market (costs money). And maybe it takes seven years instead, or four. How do you plan for that kind of thing efficiently?
The NIMBYism also affects the waste byproducts. We pay a fee on our bills every month to cover storage and eventual disposal of the waste. Because of delays on approvals (which also cost money), it sits in water holding tanks (primarily) and we can't get rid of it. My utility (ComEd) is almost 55% nuclear so this is by no means a trivial problem. The storage expense goes up every month so eventually it reaches my pocketbook.
Even without the building of new plants, the ability to cut some of the red tape around the existing plants is laudable and I'm glad it is happening. Just not fast enough.
No doubt, lawyers cost a lot of money. But surely that was only a tiny fraction of the $30 billion cost of Plant Vogtle. Also, I have heard that lawyers cost a lot when you build a solar, wind or natural gas plant, yet these plants are far cheaper than Vogtle.
Vogtle was 7 years late. That was 7 years added on after construction began. I am sure the lawyers and permitting process did not add to the time it took. I was following developments the whole time, because I live in Georgia. The problems were technical, with pumps, cooling systems, systems that did not pass inspection, plus the construction company went bankrupt. Lawyers cannot be blamed for technical problems.
I agree that NIMBY causes problems with nuclear waste. I myself would not want that waste anywhere near my house. Solar and wind have no fuel and no waste products, so that is another huge advantage, on top of costing 3 to 10 times less per kilowatt hour. I would prefer cheap electricity to expensive electricity.
Regarding safety, when the Fukushima plant was being planned, Tokyo Electric Power people assured the local people in Fukushima that it was perfectly safe. One of them famously responded, "then why not build it in Tokyo?" If they had built it anywhere near Tokyo, the whole city would have been abandoned for the next 50 years or so. 90,000 people were evacuated from Fukushima and I think it is likely they will not be returning for the next several generations.
The Tokyo Electric Power company and the Japanese government keep saying the area is cleaned, nothing to see here. It happens that I translate Japanese physics and chemistry papers, and I know several Japanese nuclear scientists and fission engineers. One of them was given soil samples from various places in Fukushima Prefecture. They were so radioactive he was afraid to work with them. Biologists have been trapping and shooting wild boars in the area. One of them take 50 km from the plant had 6,000 times more radioactive debris in its meat than it is safe to eat. So I do not believe the power company or the government, and neither do any of the scientists I work with.
I doubt the Japanese public will ever allow the construction of another nuke. I don't want another in Georgia because I do not like to pay 10 times more than necessary for electricity over the life of the plant.
It is an obsolete technology. It is dead. Solar and wind left it in the dust. You might as well try to sell vacuum tube computers.
One reason that it's so expensive is because the permitting process takes years and years and costs build up. Another reason is there is nowhere to send the nuclear waste because while the nuclear waste isn't weapons grade, the NIMBYism certainly is. I have no problem with building up our solar capacity, but one of the major inefficiencies for nuclear is the roadblocks thrown in it's way at every step. As to it's safety, we have an entire fleet of submarines and aircraft carriers running on it, so apparently it can be done. I refuse to believe that there aren't ways to do that commercially.
I do not see how the long permitting process could add to the cost. They don't start to build until the permits are granted. I do not know about nuclear waste, but the cost of decommissioning is paid for with a small surtax per megawatt hour.
Perhaps, as you say, safe designs are possible, such as the pebble bed reactor. But the cost will be high, and once a technology falls behind in cost competition, it seldom recovers. Even if the nukes fall in price, solar will fall faster. It is the dominant source. It will be manufactured in far greater quantities, creating economies scale. Things like concentrated solar power (with mirrors) have also fallen behind and are unlikely to catch up.
The other thing about nukes is that although the fuel is cheap, it is not free. Whereas solar and wind have no fuel.
Anyway, the people advocating it both here and at the DoE consider the cost. No power company will install a nuke when it costs so much.
"I do not see how the long permitting process could add to the cost."
Jed, there are these things that are called lawyers, and they don't work for free. Every step of the process and anything associated with it involves lawyers. They get their fees.
Also, the long process causes uncertainty in the process. Let's say that we have an existing coal plant that will reach end of life in 2028. We can build a new nuclear plant by then and have it online to replace the existing plant. Now we introduce a five-year delay (not uncommon). Our choices are to refurbish an existing plant (costs money), build a new plant (costs money), or purchase power on the open market (costs money). And maybe it takes seven years instead, or four. How do you plan for that kind of thing efficiently?
The NIMBYism also affects the waste byproducts. We pay a fee on our bills every month to cover storage and eventual disposal of the waste. Because of delays on approvals (which also cost money), it sits in water holding tanks (primarily) and we can't get rid of it. My utility (ComEd) is almost 55% nuclear so this is by no means a trivial problem. The storage expense goes up every month so eventually it reaches my pocketbook.
Even without the building of new plants, the ability to cut some of the red tape around the existing plants is laudable and I'm glad it is happening. Just not fast enough.
No doubt, lawyers cost a lot of money. But surely that was only a tiny fraction of the $30 billion cost of Plant Vogtle. Also, I have heard that lawyers cost a lot when you build a solar, wind or natural gas plant, yet these plants are far cheaper than Vogtle.
Vogtle was 7 years late. That was 7 years added on after construction began. I am sure the lawyers and permitting process did not add to the time it took. I was following developments the whole time, because I live in Georgia. The problems were technical, with pumps, cooling systems, systems that did not pass inspection, plus the construction company went bankrupt. Lawyers cannot be blamed for technical problems.
I agree that NIMBY causes problems with nuclear waste. I myself would not want that waste anywhere near my house. Solar and wind have no fuel and no waste products, so that is another huge advantage, on top of costing 3 to 10 times less per kilowatt hour. I would prefer cheap electricity to expensive electricity.
Regarding safety, when the Fukushima plant was being planned, Tokyo Electric Power people assured the local people in Fukushima that it was perfectly safe. One of them famously responded, "then why not build it in Tokyo?" If they had built it anywhere near Tokyo, the whole city would have been abandoned for the next 50 years or so. 90,000 people were evacuated from Fukushima and I think it is likely they will not be returning for the next several generations.
The Tokyo Electric Power company and the Japanese government keep saying the area is cleaned, nothing to see here. It happens that I translate Japanese physics and chemistry papers, and I know several Japanese nuclear scientists and fission engineers. One of them was given soil samples from various places in Fukushima Prefecture. They were so radioactive he was afraid to work with them. Biologists have been trapping and shooting wild boars in the area. One of them take 50 km from the plant had 6,000 times more radioactive debris in its meat than it is safe to eat. So I do not believe the power company or the government, and neither do any of the scientists I work with.
I doubt the Japanese public will ever allow the construction of another nuke. I don't want another in Georgia because I do not like to pay 10 times more than necessary for electricity over the life of the plant.
It is an obsolete technology. It is dead. Solar and wind left it in the dust. You might as well try to sell vacuum tube computers.