-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Nuclear power
- Thread starter eledille
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Energy Environment Policy
SmartElectric
Active Member
AntronX
Member
Contrary to popular belief on this thread, nukes are not dying yet (this may ruffle feathers of some of you 
Nuclear construction reaches 25-year high
(also, he's going to make nuclear great again!)
Nuclear construction reaches 25-year high
(also, he's going to make nuclear great again!)
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Contrary to popular belief on this thread, nukes are not dying yet (this may ruffle feathers of some of you
Nuclear construction reaches 25-year high
(also, he's going to make nuclear great again!)
Here's a list... ~half of the reactors in China that were under construction happened to be scheduled to finish in 2016. That drops to 2 next year and one in 2019. Curious that the article didn't list the 10 reactors it was bragging about... most of the reactors actually scheduled to be online in 2016 are still under construction (as is the industry standard).
When you go on a building spree then discover you're unable to actually finish a lot of what you started... but keep blindly building anyway... you're gonna set new construction records. Not sure if that's a good thing....
At least not in China. Do you have any details for the USA, other than Trumps promise?
Last edited:
Brando
Active Member
Yes, ripping off the actual tax payers (wage slaves who can't avoid taxes like our President brags about) is alive and well. Some simply call it corporate welfare.
No Atomic Reactor has ever been financed by a bank, too risky. No reactor has ever been insured by an insurance company.
Google search; loans to atomic reactors -pick your source of info, below one example
Beyond Nuclear - Loan Guarantees
Google search; insurance for atomic reactors
- complex subject, $12 to 14B loss cap taxpayers cover the rest Price-Andersen
- Fukushima clean up estimated at $190 B (2016)
[now this, I don't think covers the 160,000 displaced people, re-settlement on going, etc]
- How much did it cost to clean up Three Mile Island?
Cleanup started in August 1979 and officially ended in December 1993, with a total cleanup cost of about $1 billion. Benjamin K. Sovacool, in his 2007 preliminary assessment of major energy accidents, estimated that the TMI accident caused a total of $2.4 billion in property damages.
IF Atomic Reactors were a good ROI (Return On Investment), don't you imagine Wall Street would have gotten into the game?
Nixon era planned on 1,000 to 1,200 reactors and about 120 were actually built (<100 still working)
California was to have one reactor every 50 miles along the coast. We built 3 on the coast.
The very last reactor in California, Diablo Canyon (construction fiasco) closing soon.
How long to construct a Reactor - over 10 years, some take near 20 years.
Summary - too expensive to matter, perfect for a corporate welfare project, 4 underway now in US.
(you can research for current status of these 4)
Seems enough of a rant for now. Side note: molten salt reactors didn't work any better, many tried.
No Atomic Reactor has ever been financed by a bank, too risky. No reactor has ever been insured by an insurance company.
Google search; loans to atomic reactors -pick your source of info, below one example
Beyond Nuclear - Loan Guarantees
Google search; insurance for atomic reactors
- complex subject, $12 to 14B loss cap taxpayers cover the rest Price-Andersen
- Fukushima clean up estimated at $190 B (2016)
[now this, I don't think covers the 160,000 displaced people, re-settlement on going, etc]
- How much did it cost to clean up Three Mile Island?
Cleanup started in August 1979 and officially ended in December 1993, with a total cleanup cost of about $1 billion. Benjamin K. Sovacool, in his 2007 preliminary assessment of major energy accidents, estimated that the TMI accident caused a total of $2.4 billion in property damages.
IF Atomic Reactors were a good ROI (Return On Investment), don't you imagine Wall Street would have gotten into the game?
Nixon era planned on 1,000 to 1,200 reactors and about 120 were actually built (<100 still working)
California was to have one reactor every 50 miles along the coast. We built 3 on the coast.
The very last reactor in California, Diablo Canyon (construction fiasco) closing soon.
How long to construct a Reactor - over 10 years, some take near 20 years.
Summary - too expensive to matter, perfect for a corporate welfare project, 4 underway now in US.
(you can research for current status of these 4)
Seems enough of a rant for now. Side note: molten salt reactors didn't work any better, many tried.
Brando
Active Member
Perhaps electric car charging overnight will save them?
Seems like a great corporate welfare project (and government employment no doubt).
Looks like both Summer and Vogtle will be staring down possible construction halt decisions as soon as next month:
Summer nuke owners accept $2.2B from Toshiba to continue construction
RT
Summer nuke owners accept $2.2B from Toshiba to continue construction
RT
They just pulled the plug on Summer:
BREAKING: Santee Cooper, SCANA abandon Summer nuclear plant construction
I think we are officially at the end of new Nuclear Power construction in the U.S. Renewables and battery storage will be so cheap by the time they get the small reactors through licensing, no utility in their right mind would consider it for a second.
Vogtle is the only remaining domino to fall.
The AP1000's at Sanmen are looking to start commercial power production next year:
Milestones - Nuclear Energy Institute
RT
BREAKING: Santee Cooper, SCANA abandon Summer nuclear plant construction
I think we are officially at the end of new Nuclear Power construction in the U.S. Renewables and battery storage will be so cheap by the time they get the small reactors through licensing, no utility in their right mind would consider it for a second.
Vogtle is the only remaining domino to fall.
The AP1000's at Sanmen are looking to start commercial power production next year:
Milestones - Nuclear Energy Institute
RT
Vogtle final cost could escalate to $27 billion. Last costing exercise before the decision later this month whether to pull the plug...
Vogtle nuke cost could top $25B as decision time looms
Someone should do an exercise and figure out how much solar PV and battery storage could have been built with that much money.
RT
Vogtle nuke cost could top $25B as decision time looms
Someone should do an exercise and figure out how much solar PV and battery storage could have been built with that much money.
RT
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Thats going to be a pretty significant economic impact on the surrounding area if they stop construction. The Summer cancellation story said that 5,000 people were going to lose their jobs.
RT
They could have saved Billions of they'd just handed each of those people $500k 5 years ago...
Looks like we are now officially in the "Who's to blame" part of the drama...
South Carolina legislators seek special session on Summer nuke abandonment
“There has got to be some responsibility taken for what’s occurred here,” Setzler (Senate Minority Leader) told The State. Separately, the office of S.C. Attorney General Alan Wilson plans to investigate the failed nuclear project, and Wilson has written a letter supporting Leatherman and Lucas and joining Massey and Setzler in asking for the General Assembly to reconvene.
The 5,000 laid off construction workers may end up getting replaced to some degree with high priced lawyers. The Subway's and Togo's might close, but a few more Ruth's Chris could well be on the way.
RT
South Carolina legislators seek special session on Summer nuke abandonment
“There has got to be some responsibility taken for what’s occurred here,” Setzler (Senate Minority Leader) told The State. Separately, the office of S.C. Attorney General Alan Wilson plans to investigate the failed nuclear project, and Wilson has written a letter supporting Leatherman and Lucas and joining Massey and Setzler in asking for the General Assembly to reconvene.
The 5,000 laid off construction workers may end up getting replaced to some degree with high priced lawyers. The Subway's and Togo's might close, but a few more Ruth's Chris could well be on the way.
RT
They're blaming the public utility, for backing out. That is how the narrative it taking shape. It's nonsense, and I don't believe SC's rate-payers will be fooled by the Governor. He effectively is asking them to fund a social works program, and keep the ~5,600 employed, or maybe he's going to go to the SC tax-payer? Today, Scana said they likely won't go back, even if another party comes forward with interest in the plant. So, I'd bet abandonment stays the plan, and the legal theater will remain mostly on the corporate side (Base Load Review Act).
America's utilities have done a "good job" protecting themselves from risk, in construction. These plants are no exception. 60 years. That is the proposed term over which they are to be paid back the "abandonment costs". The two reactors may never see use, just like Lilco's Shoreham and Washington Pub Power. Forums like this will continue making cost comparisons between power sources, but, again, we are seeing one of the biggest attributions of consumer electric bills going to plants that never fired up.
It's a massive failure, and the timing couldn't have been worse. A ~2008 commitment, when the United States had a fever for doing something about CO2 (that we haven't had since ), and the economy was just before its big recession. Estimates for 39TWh of demand, in ten years, have materialized into ~24TWh, for Santee Cooper.
America's utilities have done a "good job" protecting themselves from risk, in construction. These plants are no exception. 60 years. That is the proposed term over which they are to be paid back the "abandonment costs". The two reactors may never see use, just like Lilco's Shoreham and Washington Pub Power. Forums like this will continue making cost comparisons between power sources, but, again, we are seeing one of the biggest attributions of consumer electric bills going to plants that never fired up.
It's a massive failure, and the timing couldn't have been worse. A ~2008 commitment, when the United States had a fever for doing something about CO2 (that we haven't had since
), and the economy was just before its big recession. Estimates for 39TWh of demand, in ten years, have materialized into ~24TWh, for Santee Cooper.
Brando
Active Member
Solar employs about 250,000 and coal 75,000 and where will the Feds put money?
Last year, solar added almost 50,000 jobs, so lost 5,000 can switch to solar. Sadly probably also mean a cut in pay. Large scale Wind needs electrical training more than low voltage solar. Now Utility scale and batteries a different story, yes?
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Good overview of the death of nuclear power here:
Nuclear power plants are ‘bleeding cash’
Some choice quotes:
It sometimes seems like U.S. and European nuclear companies are in competition to see which can heap greater embarrassment on their industry,” the Financial Times wrote earlier this month.
The nuclear industry is so uncompetitive now that over half of all existing U.S. nuclear power plants are “bleeding cash” according to a Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) report released earlier this summer. BNEF found that $2.9 billion is lost every year by just 55 percent of all the nuclear plants in the United States.
Even the nuclear-friendly French — who get most of their power from nukes — can’t build an affordable, on-schedule next generation nuclear plant in their own country.
“The U.S. plants risk becoming an even bigger fiasco than those involving the European Pressurized Reactor at Flamanville in France and Olkiluoto, Finland,” said the Financial Times. Those plants “although years late and billions of euros over budget, at least look likely to be completed in the next couple of years.”
“Let it be written that environmentalists didn’t kill the nuclear power industry, economics did,” explains Houston Chronicle business columnist Chris Tomlinson in a piece headlined, “Nuclear power as we know it is finished.”
-----------------------------------
To paraphrase Lyndon Johnson: When you've lost the Houston Chronicle, you've lost the nation.
Nuclear power plants are ‘bleeding cash’
Some choice quotes:
It sometimes seems like U.S. and European nuclear companies are in competition to see which can heap greater embarrassment on their industry,” the Financial Times wrote earlier this month.
The nuclear industry is so uncompetitive now that over half of all existing U.S. nuclear power plants are “bleeding cash” according to a Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) report released earlier this summer. BNEF found that $2.9 billion is lost every year by just 55 percent of all the nuclear plants in the United States.
Even the nuclear-friendly French — who get most of their power from nukes — can’t build an affordable, on-schedule next generation nuclear plant in their own country.
“The U.S. plants risk becoming an even bigger fiasco than those involving the European Pressurized Reactor at Flamanville in France and Olkiluoto, Finland,” said the Financial Times. Those plants “although years late and billions of euros over budget, at least look likely to be completed in the next couple of years.”
“Let it be written that environmentalists didn’t kill the nuclear power industry, economics did,” explains Houston Chronicle business columnist Chris Tomlinson in a piece headlined, “Nuclear power as we know it is finished.”
-----------------------------------
To paraphrase Lyndon Johnson: When you've lost the Houston Chronicle, you've lost the nation.
meanwhile China is reading AP1000 and EPR for startups even they started building later...
China pips US in race to start the world’s first meltdown-proof nuclear power plant
China pips US in race to start the world’s first meltdown-proof nuclear power plant
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Years late and billions over budget (subsidized by Chinese government).
Similar threads
