Ponderable

I thought this was interesting take on the future of nuclear power...


Bloomberg View said:
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-01-31/the-dream-of-cheap-nuclear-power-is-over
The Dream of Cheap Nuclear Power Is Over
The biggest problem with nuclear isn’t safety -- it’s cost. The economics of nuclear are almost certain to keep it a marginal part of the energy mix, especially in the U.S.

Many energy sources involve relatively small upfront costs. To increase solar power, just build more panels. Fracking also has lower fixed costs than traditional oil drilling. But nuclear’s fixed costs are enormous. A new nuclear plant in the U.S. costs about $9 billion to build -- more than 1,000 times as much as a new fracking well, and more than 3,000 times as much as the world’s biggest solar plant.

Raising $9 billion is a daunting obstacle. It’s more money than Apple Inc., the U.S.’s most valuable company, borrowed in 2016.
Click to expand...
 
tenacious said:
I thought this was interesting take on the future of nuclear power...
Click to expand...

We have no idea what the full cost of a nuclear power plant will be because we have never had a full-out accident, and we have only retired a few of the earlier, smaller ones. By law (the Price-Anderson Act of 1957), operators of nuclear plants can purchase what amounts to insurance through a common pool arrangement, with a limit to the amount of claims that would be paid. No rational insurance company wanted to get involved insuring against a catastrophe for which they had no experience.

The largest payout from the pool was for the Three Mile Island event. A little over $1 million was paid to claimants who had evacuated the area or had lost wages due to suspension of local businesses, even though no official evacuation order had been given, and about $70 million to claimants through a class-action suit brought by nearby residents without them having to show any real damage, just proximity. The insurance pool costs each plant about $375 million a year, and with the pooling arrangement among the plants, could handle claims up to about $12 billion. Beyond that, claimants would be just SOL, although it is not unreasonable to assume that the federal government would throw money at it.

The current San Onofre saga is another reason to be wary of large nuclear power plants - the owner/operators (So Cal Edison and SDG&E) and manufacturers combined to produce an unusable design. In a rational industry, a company that screw up that badly just absorbs its mistake by reducing its profits, or goes bankrupt. The operators of SONGS want their customers to foot the bill, and almost had that accomplished until newspapers and Friends of the Earth discovered documents that showed the settlement had been arranged between the operators and the Public Utilities Commission in illegal private meetings.
 
espola said:
We have no idea what the full cost of a nuclear power plant will be because we have never had a full-out accident, and we have only retired a few of the earlier, smaller ones. By law (the Price-Anderson Act of 1957), operators of nuclear plants can purchase what amounts to insurance through a common pool arrangement, with a limit to the amount of claims that would be paid. No rational insurance company wanted to get involved insuring against a catastrophe for which they had no experience.

The largest payout from the pool was for the Three Mile Island event. A little over $1 million was paid to claimants who had evacuated the area or had lost wages due to suspension of local businesses, even though no official evacuation order had been given, and about $70 million to claimants through a class-action suit brought by nearby residents without them having to show any real damage, just proximity. The insurance pool costs each plant about $375 million a year, and with the pooling arrangement among the plants, could handle claims up to about $12 billion. Beyond that, claimants would be just SOL, although it is not unreasonable to assume that the federal government would throw money at it.

The current San Onofre saga is another reason to be wary of large nuclear power plants - the owner/operators (So Cal Edison and SDG&E) and manufacturers combined to produce an unusable design. In a rational industry, a company that screw up that badly just absorbs its mistake by reducing its profits, or goes bankrupt. The operators of SONGS want their customers to foot the bill, and almost had that accomplished until newspapers and Friends of the Earth discovered documents that showed the settlement had been arranged between the operators and the Public Utilities Commission in illegal private meetings.
Click to expand...

What they were saying in the article is it's not really the risk of a disaster that's stopping them anymore. But rather it's that is costs almost nine billion to build one. And that nine billion doesn't see any return until the day you finishing building it. Where as what did they say... "more than 1,000 times as much as a new fracking well, and more than 3,000 times as much as the world’s biggest solar plant."

Sorta like what natural gas has done to coal... there are just better alternatives unless you're going to use government funds and subsidize them.
 
Wez said:
It was, now you got me wondering about my investments in the nuclear industry (been down and out for a long time), damn you!! 8)
Click to expand...

I was thinking about that too. It's hard to know what to do with Trump? Nat gas and solar seem to make the most economic sense. Well not solar so much as the technology that is needed to interface the energy coming in from the panels, and with the houses electrical system (i.e. storage batteries, car chargers, water heaters, etc).

That said, I'm just some guy on the internet so take that advise for what it's worth...
 
tenacious said:
What they were saying in the article is it's not really the risk of a disaster that's stopping them anymore. But rather it's that is costs almost nine billion to build one. And that nine billion doesn't see any return until the day you finishing building it. Where as what did they say... "more than 1,000 times as much as a new fracking well, and more than 3,000 times as much as the world’s biggest solar plant."

Sorta like what natural gas has done to coal... there are just better alternatives unless you're going to use government funds and subsidize them.
Click to expand...

A safe nuclear plant is expensive. A cheap nuclear plant is not safe.

I think the way the Navy operates its reactors is a good model for the nuclear industry in general. The operators are selected from the best applicants, they are highly trained in all facets of operation (including simulated disasters), and they sleep in the structure housing the reactor.
 
tenacious said:
I was thinking about that too. It's hard to know what to do with Trump? Nat gas and solar seem to make the most economic sense. Well not solar so much as the technology that is needed to interface the energy coming in from the panels, and with the houses electrical system (i.e. storage batteries, car chargers, water heaters, etc).

That said, I'm just some guy on the internet so take that advise for what it's worth...
Click to expand...

Have you seen the long term performance of stocks in the Solar industry? It's God awful! Take a look at the Solar ETF, "TAN". The chart since inception is like a ski slope...
 
I always found it odd that with the Pacific Ocean at our doorstep that someone has not figured out a way to build hydro-electric plant. The salt water could be problematic.
 
Bernie Sanders said:
Tidal swings are reliable.
Click to expand...

Most So Cal tides are pitiful. The northern stretches of Sea of Cortez have tide swings of at least 6 feet and sometimes more than 20 feet depending on the phase of the moon. Land is cheap and there are big markets for power in easy reach. Tides are predictable, plus or minus wind and rain effects, and sometimes the maximum power available occurs during peak demand times.

http://sanfelipe.com.mx/weather/tide-calendars/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top