The monetatry cost of Nuclear Power

[Woodrow]

As I have stated before, the concept of using nuclear power for the generating of Electricity is cost prohibitive. Nuclear power is not the way for undeveloped countries to solve their energy problems. This is just an example of the current cost in the UK. This is just clean up costs.

UK nuclear cleanup to cost $122 billion
Thu Oct 26, 2006 5:35am ET143


LONDON (Reuters) - Britain's Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, set up in April 2005 to oversee the dismantling of old nuclear power stations, said on Thursday it would cost 65 billion pounds ($122 billion) to clean up civil nuclear sites.

"The latest version of our lifetime plans -- which detail the commercial operations, decommissioning and clean up programmes of our 20 sites -- now show a total cost of 64.8 billion pounds, a net increase of 2.1 billion pounds," it said in a statement.

The NDA said the increase was due to an "improved understanding" of the costs involved in cleaning up the nuclear reprocessing plant Sellafield.

The NDA also said that current plans submitted by contractors had weaknesses that could lead to substantial changes in clean-up costs.



"For example, our sites do not currently assess risk and allocate contingency on a consistent basis," the NDA said in its annual report. "These weaknesses could lead to substantial amendments in the costs and schedule of work."

Britain's nuclear decommissioning sector is currently dominated by British Nuclear Group (BNG). The government is planning to split up the state-owned company, which is the NDA's principal customer, in a four-part sale.

U.S. engineering and construction company Fluor Corp has made an offer of 400 million pounds for BNG, depending on contracts.

EnergySolutions, a U.S. private equity-backed firm previously called Envirocare, has since said it could top Fluor's offer and believes BNG would be worth more if broken up.

© Reuters 2006. All Rights Reserved.

Source: http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...IN.xml&src=rss

[IzakHalevas]

So basically, why would Iran want "Nuclear Power"????

[wilberhum]

So basically, why would Iran want "Nuclear Power"????

Because it is the first step to a nuclear weapon.
But then you knew that.

[IzakHalevas]

Because it is the first step to a nuclear weapon.
But then you knew that.

Of course I did, I was just waiting for an awnser. :D

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Woodrow]

With todays nuclear reactors I am convinced that the only purpose they serve is to produce plutonium for Nuclear weapons. The plutonium is a waste product from them and making the waste into bombs is the best way to get rid of it. Justify the need for a reactor and the need to produce weapons becomes justified.

[Dahir]

So basically, why would Iran want "Nuclear Power"????

Energy would the first reason -- America gets 85% of its energy from nuclear power, so why can't the Iranians have that luxury?

Weapons would also be open for discussion.

[Woodrow]

Energy would the first reason -- America gets 85% of its energy from nuclear power, so why can't the Iranians have that luxury?

Weapons would also be open for discussion.

I'm curious as to where you got that 85% figure. A very large percentage of the reactors that were built in the US have been deactivated and shut down. Texas and Oklhoma were supposed to be on all nuke, from the reactor site near Houston. However that has pretty well gone kaplunk and most of our electric is from lignite burning generators.

[Dahir]

Woodrow,

I got 85% from an economy book I once read, but maybe I was confused, because I looked it up on wikipedia and I was given 20% as nuclear energy's share in American fuel consumption.

[Woodrow]

Woodrow,

I got 85% from an economy book I once read, but maybe I was confused, because I looked it up on wikipedia and I was given 20% as nuclear energy's share in American fuel consumption.

If you had looked at old references you would have found that in the 1960s and 70s there were enough reactors already built or being built to produce at least 85% of our electricity. However, most have been scrapped and are now non-operational. Nobody can figure out how to dispose of them so they are now costing a bundle in maintanence and are non-productive.

Here are some interesting links and a few quotes from them:

http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/...re1/index.html

A long deferred cleanup is now under way at 114 of the nation's nuclear facilities, which encompass an acreage equivalent to Rhode Island and Delaware combined. Many smaller sites, the easy ones, have been cleansed, but the big challenges remain. What's to be done with 52,000 tons (47,000 metric tons) of dangerously radioactive spent fuel from commercial and defense nuclear reactors? With 91 million gallons (345 million liters) of high-level waste left over from plutonium processing, scores of tons of plutonium, more than half a million tons of depleted uranium, millions of cubic feet of contaminated tools, metal scraps, clothing, oils, solvents, and other waste? And with some 265 million tons (240 million metric tons) of tailings from milling uranium ore—less than half stabilized—littering landscapes?

Subscribe to National Geographic magazine.

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/n...sons-from.html

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) seems to be following the script of the movie Groundhog Day, reliving the same bad event again and again. This event—an outage at a nuclear power plant that lasts more than a year—has happened 51 times at 41 different reactors around the United States and shows no signs of stopping.




Looking But Not Seeing: the Federal Nuclear Power Plant Inspection Program (1978, PDF 1.6 MB)
offsite
GAO's NRC Report These long shutdowns are a sign of widespread safety problems at the reactors. Each such occurrence results from a violation of federal regulations that require plant owners to find and fix safety problems in a timely, effective manner, coupled with the NRC's inability to detect those violations (allowing problems to multiply and worsen as a result). The accident at Three Mile Island might have been prevented had the NRC broken this cycle.

Since the nuclear power industry is unable to script Hollywood-style happy endings once events have begun to spin out of control, Congress must compel the NRC to be a more aggressive enforcer of federal safety regulations. Otherwise, declining safety performance could result in a nuclear disaster rather than a costly year-plus outage.

In Walking a Nuclear Tightrope: Unlearned Lessons of Year-plus Reactor Outages, the Union of Concerned Scientists identifies common themes among extended outages and steps the NRC must take to end these costly and avoidable threats to public health and the U.S. economy.

Current operating reactors in USA

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear...ors/nuke1.html

Currently non-operational:

http://www.animatedsoftware.com/envi.../nukelist1.htm

From that last link:

How can we protect our nuclear power plants?

Don’t count on the plant security forces -- they aren’t nearly strong enough. These plants are each vulnerable to air strikes, truck bombs, boat bombs, and of course, the well-equipped and well-armed single madman or small group of terrorists. All anyone needs to do is toss a grenade into a Spent Fuel Pool and hundreds of thousands or even MILLIONS could die.

WE CAN SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE OUR VULNERABILITIES BY CLOSING / CONVERTING THE NUKE PLANTS TO NATURAL GAS AND WIND FARMS, ETC..

(That is exactly what they did to Fort St. Vrain in Colorado.) The energy price per kilowatt is much lower than for nuclear or any other energy source. And there’s no “decommissioning” of wind turbines, either.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is a lap-dog agency which does little to protect the public and much to inhibit the replacement of nuclear technology with other, safer energy sources. They will not protect you. In fact, RIGHT NOW they are relicensing many of these reactors for another 20 years each of dangerous operation.

It’s time for a change, America!

In that last link check out the dollar cost in property damage each of our 100+ reactors have cost us. Each of them has been on a scale similar to the Damage in New Orleans from Hurricane Katrina.

[Woodrow]

Today I was at another site and got into this debate again with some conservationists. Texas (which is roughly the same size as Pakistan) needs more Electric plants for the growing population. TXU Texas utility commission has approved the building of 11 new coal burning generating plants. Why didn't they choose Nuclear as the conservationists wanted? Because the 2 plants we currently have produce much more waste and cost more to clean up.

I found out the waste produced by the 2 existing plants costs from %350 to $500 per cubic foot to dispose of and it will still be a hazard for 10 to several thousand years.

In Texas, low-level radioactive waste associated with power plants, industries, hospitals and research connected with the University of Texas System and mining amounts to about 20,000 cubic feet per year.(10) By volume, about a third of this low-level radioactive waste comes from Texas' two nuclear power reactors: the South Texas Project in Matagorda County, and the two-unit Comanche Peak Project in Somervell County.(11)

By the amount of radioactivity - as measured in a radioactivity scale known as curies - nuclear power plants account for at least 70 percent of the state's low-level radioactive waste.(12) While most waste produced in Texas stays radioactive less than 100 years, about 1 percent - again associated with power plants - will remain hazardous for thousands and even hundreds of thousands of years.(13)

Federal and state definitions differ. In Texas, low-level radioactive waste includes radioactive waste that has a half-life of 35 years or less and fewer than 10 nanocuries per gram of transuranics, as well as waste with half-lives of more than 35 years if special criteria for the disposal of the waste are established by the TNRCC.(14) These special criteria have been met by the TNRCC for some waste. The federal definition is more lenient since it considers any radioactive waste that has less than 100 nanocuries per gram low-level.(15) In 1995, the Texas Legislature considered changing Texas regulations so that state and federal definitions of low-level radioactive waste would be the same.


Each cubic foot of low-level radioactive waste costs $350 - $500 to ship and manage at a proper waste management facility.

Source for the Quote: http://www.texascenter.org/almanac/W...RIALCH9P2.HTML

[MTAFFI]

Energy would the first reason -- America gets 85% of its energy from nuclear power, so why can't the Iranians have that luxury?

Weapons would also be open for discussion.

how will they pay for it? much of that country is in poverty, yet they would rather spend all their money on military and nuclear power. I think Ahmadenjad should get his priorities straight. Right now he doesnt even have electricity for all of his countries, maybe he should use some of that money to provide electricity for all of his citizens before trying to advance his country before it is ready

[Keltoi]

Now we have Jordan talking about nuclear power, probably in response to Iran's nuclear ambitions.

[sister herb]

So basically, why would Iran want "Nuclear Power"????

So basicly, why Israel has nuclear power/weapons if it is so expensive? Why Israel has right for something what Iran hasn´t? :playing: Israel hasn´t shown that it behaves sensible ways by its neighboring countries but kills and maims civilians by any reasons.

Example; in Lebanon good reason were 2 captured soldiers and in Gaza 1 captured soldier. And how many innocent civilians this "war machine" has murdered after that...:eek:

[Woodrow]

So basicly, why Israel has nuclear power/weapons if it is so expensive? Why Israel has right for something what Iran hasn´t? :playing: Israel hasn´t shown that it behaves sensible ways by its neighboring countries but kills and maims civilians by any reasons.

Example; in Lebanon good reason were 2 captured soldiers and in Gaza 1 captured soldier. And how many innocent civilians this "war machine" has murdered after that...:eek:

A lot of us in the USA are also wondering the same thing. Israel has no legitimate need for Nuclear Weapons any potential enemies they have are much too close to them for them to risk using nukes. It would be self destruction for them to ever use a nuke.

Only an idiot would risk using a nuke against any country that is less than 10,000 miles away from them.

[MTAFFI]

A lot of us in the USA are also wondering the same thing. Israel has no legitimate need for Nuclear Weapons any potential enemies they have are much too close to them for them to risk using nukes. It would be self destruction for them to ever use a nuke.

Only an idiot would risk using a nuke against any country that is less than 10,000 miles away from them.

not only that but it isnt exactly "proven" that they do have nuclear power, even though we all know that they most likely do

[Skillganon]

So basically, why would Iran want "Nuclear Power"????

Because it produces energy?

Is it me or is it we are missing something. Nuclear Power does produce energy, it is a mean's of producing energy. So people who wan't to produce it are given the right's to do so.

The News Woodrow has cited is the cost for cleaning up the dismantled Nuclear site. That is all.

What one should concern you is the environmental issue of Nuclear Waste. Is it worth paying for it?

[Woodrow]

The News Woodrow has cited is the cost for cleaning up the dismantled Nuclear site. That is all.

Nope the two reactors are still in operation and producing 20,000 cubic feet of nuclear waste per year. Them two nuclear plants have almost doubled the cost of Electricity in Texas. Which is the reason we are pushing to shut them down and replace them with coal operated plants.

[MTAFFI]

Because it produces energy?

Is it me or is it we are missing something. Nuclear Power does produce energy, it is a mean's of producing energy. So people who wan't to produce it are given the right's to do so.

The News Woodrow has cited is the cost for cleaning up the dismantled Nuclear site. That is all.

What one should concern you is the environmental issue of Nuclear Waste. Is it worth paying for it?

The question with Iran is can they pay to clean it up? and if they cant they definitely shouldnt have it

either way nuclear waste is about as bad as you can get for the enviroment, to bad people dont want to spend more time looking at solar or wind or something that doesnt have such horrible by products that will eventually ruin the world for our children... everything seems so grim, I mean with war, waste and other extinction level events the future may truly end sooner than most think imsad

[Trumble]

Israel has no legitimate need for Nuclear Weapons any potential enemies they have are much too close to them for them to risk using nukes. It would be self destruction for them to ever use a nuke.

A mistaken assumption. Israel would be quite prepared to use nuclear weapons even on neighbours if the very existence of the State of Israel itself was at stake. Bombs could be dropped on, say, Cairo and Damascus without Israel 'self-destructing' (although they certainly wouldn't do it any good)... and at that point the reasoning might well be that they had nothing to lose, anyway. I hasten to add I only pick those examples based on historical aggressors against Israel, but the general point is valid. The Israelis have nukes for the same reasons the Americans and Soviets acquired them, as a deterrent not a first strike weapon. The Israelis still consider themselves as surrounded at least by potential aggressors. I think they have a point; there are plenty whose attitude to Israel is on the lines of "wipe it out", and no reason why, one day, such people may obtain power in Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Iraq.

No equivalent threat to Iran exists, or looks likely to exist. I just pity the poor Iranian taxpayer having to pay for Ahmenijad's toys. If the Iranians wanted to gain respect and credibility they should contribute the money to the fusion research being undertaken by the EU, US, Japan and others. Nuclear fission is yesterday's technology, not tomorrow's.

[Woodrow]

I still contend they have no legitimate need for them. But I do agree with you on this statement.

A mistaken assumption. Israel would be quite prepared to use nuclear weapons even on neighbours if the very existence of the State of Israel itself was at stake.

Back in the early 1950's I had a sociology teacher make the statement "that the greatest threat for nuclear war is not the Russians but the mid east and it will be caused by Israel acquiring Nuclear weapons."

When Mr. Goralski made that statement he did add in it would make no difference who drops the first one but, Israel having them will be the catalyst.

Now hopefully Mr. Goralski will be proven wrong.

[Trumble]

Now hopefully Mr. Goralski will be proven wrong.

He has been for the last forty years. Let's just hope it stays that way!

[Skillganon]

The question with Iran is can they pay to clean it up? and if they cant they definitely shouldnt have it

either way nuclear waste is about as bad as you can get for the enviroment, to bad people dont want to spend more time looking at solar or wind or something that doesnt have such horrible by products that will eventually ruin the world for our children... everything seems so grim, I mean with war, waste and other extinction level events the future may truly end sooner than most think imsad

People think clean it up mean's cleaning nuclear waste. You can't make nuclear waste clean, but what that mean's is safely removing the nuclear waste and it's traces and disposing them in a safe manner.

Which easily can be done. Come on if they can produce a nuclear energy facility they will have the knowledge how to dispose it.

[Woodrow]

Come on if they can produce a nuclear energy facility they will have the knowledge how to dispose it

.

We don't have that in Texas yet. The idea is to keep it containerized and hope that some day in the future somebody will find a way to actualy dispose of it.
__________________

[MTAFFI]

People think clean it up mean's cleaning nuclear waste. You can't make nuclear waste clean, but what that mean's is safely removing the nuclear waste and it's traces and disposing them in a safe manner.

Which easily can be done. Come on if they can produce a nuclear energy facility they will have the knowledge how to dispose it.

yeah they put it in barrels and bury it underground

http://www.uic.com.au/nip49.htm

http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=1&catid=14

those two sites should give you quite a bit of insight as to how bad this waste could eventually be for our enviroment, not to mention that this waste can be stolen and used for weapons grade material

[sister herb]

not only that but it isnt exactly "proven" that they do have nuclear power, even though we all know that they most likely do

If you too would read news, you also know that Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert admited about month ago that Israel has nuclear weapons... :eek:

[MTAFFI]

If you too would read news, you also know that Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert admited about month ago that Israel has nuclear weapons... :eek:

and if you read the news even further you would see he retracted the statement and denied that Israel had the weapons. However as you quoted in my post everyone knows they have the capability anyways

[Trumble]

Come on if they can produce a nuclear energy facility they will have the knowledge how to dispose it.

Nobody else has. In every case it's just a matter of deciding which dumping or burying option is the cheapest or least environmentally damaging (depending on political priority).

[sister herb]

Interesting prime minister if nobody can´t trust his true words... but I have seen he is real zionist. He promised before to president Abbas that roadblocks in the West Bank will lifted... :rolleyes: Yep sure if you trust the words of zionist you really are losted...

[Trumble]

Interesting prime minister if nobody can´t trust his true words

I would have thought he would be a unique Prime Minister if anybody could!

[Agnostic]

A lot of us in the USA are also wondering the same thing. Israel has no legitimate need for Nuclear Weapons any potential enemies they have are much too close to them for them to risk using nukes. It would be self destruction for them to ever use a nuke.

Only an idiot would risk using a nuke against any country that is less than 10,000 miles away from them.

There is such a thing called tactical nukes, these would be confined to much smaller areas and could be used against an invading army or part of a city without the widespread damage of a larger one.
:eek:

[Woodrow]

There is such a thing called tactical nukes, these would be confined to much smaller areas and could be used against an invading army or part of a city without the widespread damage of a larger one.
:eek:

that is true. However, they do not make much sense as conventional explosives would be just as feasable and cheaper.

The so called suit case nukes are primarily a terroristic weapon designed to be hand carried and spread terror through the fear of radiation. As a battlefield weapon, they are not needed.

we learned in Nam that the carefull select dropping of small conventionals has the same explosive effect as a nuke for a small area. The main immediate damage from any bomb is caused by the sudden increase in air pressure. You need only double the air pressure in a small area to have total devastation of that area. Small targets only need small bombs. The widespread secondary effects are caused by flying material and fire.