Slashdot Mirror
As Nuclear Reactors Age, the Money To Close Them Lags
Harperdog writes "A worrying bit of news about nuclear reactors in the U.S. from the NYT: 'The operators of 20 of the nation's aging nuclear reactors, including some whose licenses expire soon, have not saved nearly enough money for prompt and proper dismantling. If it turns out that they must close, the owners intend to let them sit like industrial relics for 20 to 60 years or even longer while interest accrues in the reactors' retirement accounts.'"
Part of me thinks we need to take risks in order to learn about and understand this powerful technology, and part of me doesn't want to mutate...
They'll just use corrupt business laws and politics to rape the "retirement accounts" for their own benefit. Then they'll leave the dangerous corpses of their businesses as a warning to future generations on the stupidity of trusting your future to lowest-common-denominator businessmen.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
Are you telling me that the capitalists behind these ventures didn't plan for the future in a manner that was beneficial for all!??!!!1?!one!?!
They might be expensive to keep around. Until you price a divorce.
Have gnu, will travel.
Gee, the Public Utility Commissions setting rates wouldn't have anything to do with inadequate money saved, would it?
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
It seems unlikely that interest will grow faster than the cost of dismantling increases. But, letting the shortest half-life stuff decay will make the task a little less challenging.
Regardless of money issues, this is a standard practice known as SAFSTOR. The bulk of the radioactivity that makes dismantling a reactor difficult is in isotopes with short half lives, short enough that waiting even just 20 years to dismantle the reactor makes the job far easier and safer. This article sounds like BS to me.
It's easy to forget that when these reactors were set up the world was a different place. The "retirement" accounts for these reactors probably assumed a MUCH lower retirement cost. So it's not the fault of the utility if there isn't enough money in the accounts if the rules changed between point A and point B.
Something that is irritating about many regulations is that they're very casually passed sometimes without really considering what the rule actually costs. If these fellows didn't save enough by the standards of the old cost projections then I see no fault with them. This is a situation where the government should probably take responsibility for the costs IF they are in fact responsible for making them go up.
If they never were going to save enough even by the old rules then these utilities are at fault for mismanagement and I'd be fine with squeezing them to pony up the difference.
Regardless, the money required to dismantle these reactors is probably in excess of what the utilities are themselves liable. So the government should probably pay that difference.
I know a lot of people don't like this idea because budgets are getting tight. But when you pass regulations they cost someone money. If the government doesn't want to pay it can always relax the regulation in some circumstances. But short of that it isn't reasonable to change the rules on the utilities and then expect them to make up the difference.
Short of that, the utilities will do what they're already doing... just leaving the money in an account to mature until such time as it can cover dismantling costs.
So those are the options on the ground. Maybe I'm being unfair to someone... this is my impression of the matter.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Hell yeah! Nuclear power plants going for cheap. I'll take one! Surplus ICBM silos are interesting, but have far too many drawbacks. But nuclear power plants? Those things are bigger than a city block, above ground, extremely stable, etc. I'd love to buy one.
For starters, I think I'd start cutting up one of the cooling towers, until it looked like a giant medieval castle, just smooth and round instead of 4 stone walls. Re-enactments of Monty Python's & the Holy Grail are, of course, obligatory.
After that, I'd have to buy as much flesh-tone paint as I can afford. It would take some time, but just think of it... http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_omMU_7Vv1us/S7aqBJUCP_I/AAAAAAAAAIE/HMaftmCYRGM/s1600/san-onofre_songs.jpg">Giant nuclear boobies!
As an added bonus, nuclear power plants always need ample water, so you're guaranteed to get a private lake, river, or beachfront property, no matter which one you buy. They're also universally pretty close to mega population centers, so, while it's likely a nice quiet location, you won't be too far from a major city, unlike many of those silos.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Dig up the plant, and the soil, down to bedrock for an eight mile radius. Polish every grain with a surgical quality scrubber. Dispose of any contaminants in a mine dug to just beyond the mantel, somewhere near China.
Why should that be so expensive?
... let them sit like industrial relics for 20 to 60 years or even longer while the owners retire and die so they don't bear any responsibility.
Accrue interest? That's an excuse so think it's basically a lie. They won't EVER accrue enough interest, those monies will lose out to inflation.
These people should be taken to court and jailed, or the companies heavily fined.
-
Wow
Do it the way 1st world countries deal with e-waste and other heavy metal contaminated waste. Ship it off to a 3rd world country!
Weren't we all told there was plenty of cash available for dismantling reactors? Interest rates are on par with inflation so in 50 years there will effectively be the same amount available. This is about stalling things until the government agrees to pick up the tab as they always do. Translated who gets to pay? We do!
0_O
THEY USE OURS!
Just because the government does it... doesn't make it free. On the contrary, it usually ends up costing the consumer much more because of graft and mismanagement.
The cleanup regulations should have automatically adjusted each year to account for the increase in cleanup costs. Those increases could then be factored into the yearly budget and the savings plan automatically adjusting payments up.
Nice of you to provide a comprehensive list.
Blank until
This happens with many places that work with at least moderately radioactive material (not just reactors). What you do is tape the building/site in question off and allow it to sit for 1-2 decades. In that time the radioactivity typically decreases by orders of magnitude from decay. I can't speak to the cost savings, but so long as the site is properly fenced the safety concerns from handling all that waste go down by a lot. It isn't a bad decision in theory, but many small outfits just go "woops, can't pay to clean this up" and stick the EPA with the bill. Which is ackward, because you can't very well require the funds for cleanup up front because it would make buisnesses that use radiation in any significant way (radiopharmaceutical companies, as an example) impossibly expensive to start.
But I suppose the point of this is to attack "evil nuclear," so I'm probably wasting my time even expaining the reality. That seems to be in fashion nowadays, reality be damned.
Pardon my ignorance on the subject, but why exactly must they be closed? I did some googling on this very question and couldn't find any straightforward answer.
Why not just add more modern cores next to the existing old ones? Prolonged profit from the same site ensures that the old cores will be looked after. Cores really aren't that large, much of the room is the cooling and power grid connections. Those could be re-purposed.
We should seriously start attempting to achieve cores that do not need refueling for decades. The toshiba 4s is the farthest along in testing. It is designed to work continuously for 30 years.
With the benefit of increasingly available super computers needed to model complex interactions of fuel alloys could bring the technology to hundreds, if not 1000s of years of running without need of refueling. Though at that point I suppose it'd be more like 'before wearing out'.
Science fiction? Yeah, now....nothing in what I just wrote violates any of the laws of thermodynamics...so I say possible.
We landed on the moon, didn't we?
Why not just add more modern cores next to the existing old ones? Prolonged profit from the same site ensures that the old cores will be looked after. Cores really aren't that large, much of the room is the cooling and power grid connections. Those could be re-purposed.
We should seriously start attempting to achieve cores that do not need refueling for decades. The toshiba 4s is the farthest along in testing. It is designed to work continuously for 30 years.
With the benefit of increasingly available super computers needed to model complex interactions of fuel alloys we could bring fission technology to hundreds, if not 1000s of years of running without need of refueling. Though at that point I suppose it'd be more like 'before wearing out'.
Science fiction? Yeah, now....nothing in what I just wrote violates any of the laws of thermodynamics...so I say possible.
We landed on the moon, didn't we?
let them sit like industrial relics for 20 to 60 years or even longer while interest accrues
Wow, it's a good thing that interest rates are so high now that they will greatly outpace inflation and make the a reality. Time for the power companies to give themselves another round of bonuses for coming up with this one and making it someone else's problem. Oh, wait ....
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
The question of what to do with everything radioactive was addressed in this area a long time ago.
First and foremost was to get it in the ground, bury it all. The problem comes a few
thousand years in the future when someone wants to dig in the area.
Signs could be unrecognizable after a thousand years, stone monolith defaced or a
language forgotten, line figures that make sense now might not in the future.
One suggestion was to create a religion, A message to pass along to future
generations: "ohmmm do not dig for 10,000 years".
Just one of many suggestions, but my favorite.
Something that is irritating about many regulations is that they're very casually passed sometimes without really considering what the rule actually costs. If these fellows didn't save enough by the standards of the old cost projections then I see no fault with them.
That might be an irritating factor with many regulations but suppose the reason for the new regulation is well justified by science? For example if a factory was built several decades ago using asbestos and then decommissioned today the costs would be significantly higher than the original projections because, in the interim, we have discovered that asbestos is dangerous. So should a government be expected to pay the increased costs because they passed regulations to require asbestos to be safely removed? It's not their fault that asbestos turned out to be dangerous anymore than it is the company's fault.
I would argue that any increase in decommissioning costs due to regulations changing is a "risk of doing business" and therefore entirely the responsibility of the company who ran the plant. Governments are naturally motivated to keep these risks to a minimum in order to encourage businesses to flourish and keep costs to a minimum for their voters so there is a balance.
Pfft, we all know that nuclear reactors are perfectly safe .. as all of the different IAEA studies have shown. And the US infrastructure is already critically underfunded, why don't the power producers give the structures to the government? They can be used as schools, hospitals, jails .. you name it! The best part is, they're so robustly built that they'll last FOREVER!
The NY Times has completely dropped the ball here. It's hard to believe that such a reputable news agency would post such hyperbole. If this were REALLY a problem, don't you think that the honest, hard working, dedicated nuclear plant operators would have done something about it? This is JUST like the tobacco industry, once the blood sucking media get hold of a story they'll suck honest hard working people dry!
And further more, why shut down the plants anyway? We all know that these plants have the BEST safety record in the history of mankind and they're carbon neutral. Given that global warming is the biggest disaster mankind has ever seen, we just can't afford to not leave these sturdy, proven and reliable plants running. And don't get me started on nuclear disasters, the largest earthquake in known history doesn't make technology dangerous .. it was just bad luck.
Pfft, mountain from a mole hill. Give me the plants, I'll fit 1,000 trailers in each and call it 'Nukem Trailer Parks'. Easy fix.
Their plan is to get the government, and by association the taxpayer, to pay for the shutdown.
There is, however, a flipside to this: should the need for energy suddenly sky-rocket, they will, no doubt, be recommissioned, with special permits to allow their continued operation (to the horror of the people who understand just how badly these reactors need to be replaced). The fun part is that we will then be continuing to run dangerously out of date nuclear power-plants, with all of the original design flaws; the government, with all of its spin, will play up the fact that they are saving the taxpayers billions of dollars in doing so.
Those of us who are proponents of nuclear technology will, of course, facepalm with the force of thousand Arnold Schwarzeneggers at this development. The green lobby, of course, will scream at this continued injustice.
I am John Hurt.
Nor drilling for oil, nor building coal-fired power plants, or any other generating station that burns evil hydrocarbons.
Hope you live in AZ or Florida so you can be saved by solar, and can put solar fuel in your gas tank.
The liberals that hate oil and nuclear also hate windmills because it messes up their view from Martha's Vineyard or kills coo coo birds (KENNEDY).
Meanwhile, China drives forward, bringing a power plant online every two weeks.
God help us.
As Nuclear Reactors Age, the Money To Close Them Lags
For many Slashdotters, money is usually what's needed to open lags, not close them.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
"...including some whose licenses expire soon..."
Of course, just because they are up for renewal doesn't mean they are at the end of their useful life, just that a bunch of luddites are fearful of them continuing to supply electricity.
Guess it's time to renew those licenses instead of retiring the reactors, on the condition that all profits go to the retirement fund for the reactor in question?
-- Terry
You are forgetting you essentially have a very large radioactive building, even if you take the fuel rods out and (re)use them somewhere else. Either encapsulate the building in a thick layer of concrete where it is now, or take it apart with extreme costs to prevent dust escaping. You then have an enormous mount of radioactive building waste. Yes, most of the radioactivity levels will be relatively low, but they would be too high to just dispose of the rubble in a normal way.
The cost would be in either disposing of the rubble, having manned guards and maintenance crews for the building for centuries or a lot of deconstruction and reconstruction to replace the outer structure with an impenetrable concrete shell. Not disposing of the fuel rods, that is relatively cheap compared to what's left after that.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
I think sodium reactors are a very dangerous technology. Much more dangerous than BWR or PWR.
A sodium fire just can't be extinguished at this scale, and will simply spread all fuel over a continent. This is 1000x more than Fukushima and Tchernobyl combined (which both only spread a small percentage of the fuel)
This is nothing more than the latest variation on privatize the gains and socialize the losses.
The owners of the reactors took the profit during the useful life of the reactors, then they toss what is left of the hot potato to the public.
1) the article is sensationalist. You usually let the reactor ret once empty of fuel to let the short lived element be gone, or the bit longer one like Cs to have a few half lives. Remember : very short half live= dangerous emit it energy radioactively very quick. At the other extrem very long half life = not that dangerous unless ingested. Then there is the type of radiation which come into account (alpha emitter are not a big deal since alpha is stopped by very thin protection). So what would you do once you have a reactor ? You let it rest, 10 , 20 years or maybe even longer so that the dangerous short half life element are gone and only medium/long half life stays. That leaves you to handle everything wqith an half life longer than a year. Still not "safe" by any stretch but certainly much safer than in the week/month after the reactor was stopped.
2) even if there was a problem with the fund, remember the LEGISLATION might have been changed on worker protection, disposing of waste, and handling the dismantelement. 50+ years ago the legislation was much more kind and CHEAP than it is today. If somebody make a legislation which increase the cost of dismantelement, I am fine with it, but then the governement, and therefore the public, should pay the difference.
And doing that with polluting assets can land you in prison for many years if caught (and don't think for a minute that when shitc asses are handled and it is found it was doing what you describe it would be let off). Those are the things they look for and it would increase the liability of the initial corp by doing the shell game. Naturally it could be that you live in the USA where that kind of shit is allowed.
If you look up the definition of "wrong" in a good dictionary you will find:"nuclear reactors are safe and clean!" as an example.
Big business/ rich owners profits from these plants while they are running. Then leave the public stuck with the bill once the money tap stops spouting mysterious free money.
The Taxpayer will bail out yet another private corporation. The Free market in it's full glory.
"we don't know how to budget for maintenance or replacement"
After all, government is there to pick up the slack where individuals lack responsibility. That's why we have government retirement, government medical care, and government this and government that for retirees. People aren't responsible enough to save for their own retirement. How can we expect them to be responsible enough to plan to close a reactor?
I didn't realise posting blank is allowed.
Come on: did you really think that the complete dismantle / clean up / store or fix the very long term waste plan/costing was realistic. No-one knew when the plants were built, and no-one knows now. It was assumed that future generations would pickup the tab and/or find a technical fix. Any retirement accounts were just for show.
You let them sit to reduce the radiation fields when you do clean them up. The most active (& nasty) radioisotopes have short half lives and will decay quickly. Letting them sit for a few decades is just safer. This is just common sense. The headline is misleading.
Nuclear reactors are the definition of too big to fail. It's a perfect storm of moral hazard. I imagine the conversation going a little like this:
"What do you mean you haven't saved enough to dismantle the nuclear reactor?"
"We spent it on hookers and blow. Bank of America hosted."
"Well, what are we going to do now?"
"Not sure about you, but I'm looking to find a vehicle to short real estate in the area."
Color me totally un-surprised that the nuclear energy industry, and worse, the agency responsible for regulating it, has failed, yet again to properly plan for the safe operation of their plants. This is, in word, bullshit. So let's here from the pro-nuke camp as to what their solution will be for this one. (crickets...)
It's easy to forget that when these reactors were set up the industry line was that the power was 'too cheap to meter'. Since it was so cheap it should have been easy to build up a fund large enough to pay for decomissioning.
Oh, those pensions we promised you in your contract?
We didn't feel like funding them, so there's nothing there.
Maybe the government will pay you 3 cents on the dollar for them.
Someone needs to power the Restaurant at the End of the Universe.
>.>
Expense has measurement units. Heat has measurement units.
Saying something is n times the cost or n times more expensive makes sense.
Saying something is n times the temperature or n times hotter makes sense.
Saying something is n times the speed or n times faster makes sense.
Saying something is n times SLOWER, COLDER or CHEAPER does NOT make sense.
There are no measurement units for slowness, coldness or cheapness.
You are absolutely right. The risks aren't necessary, they have been created.
The first and foremost of these risks is that known amoral players who are guaranteed to act in bad faith are also guaranteed to be in charge of any such processes (under our current economic, regulatory and political system in the USA, that is).
Nuclear power isn't inherently unsafe, but doing it the way we do it is horribly stupid.
Note I have pointed out in many posts the exact problem that the article discusses, and have been attacked by nuke shills for speaking about it. The nuke plant owners build the cheapest reactors possible in heavily populated areas and on critical watersheds, and they still can't turn enough profit to pay for decommissioning or waste recycling. So they just don't do anything - and wait for the disaster that the taxpayer will have to clean up. That's the whole strategy in a nutshell, because these people are corrupt and amoral. And the Cheney energy task force retroactively legalized this behavior (along with reinstituting direct subsidies for economically unsound fission technologies).
People who like the idea of nuclear power should work on fusion and clean fission research, and vote against the Republicrat and Demolican douchebags who want to let corrupt mega-corporations continue to run unsafe 1940s era terrestrial fission reactors until they fail.
The Question is why we as a society have not moved to cheaper,less damaging, and possibly stronger thorium reactors.
Here you can find more information about the topic: http://technieuws.com/
As far as I know, the reactor itself doesn't pose any more danger than an old mill. If, while they're operating, they cause less radiation to nearby families in a year than there is background radiation in a day, I don't see how they're terribly dangerous when shut down. I certainly understand the cause for annoyance that an empty building in the middle of a city that's very cramped for space brings about, but it's not like several blocks in every direction will be inhospitable. If the radioactive material is removed safely then the building itself is no cause for alarm. Unless they actually are talking about not having money to get rid of the radioactive materials in which case, what the hell, but that's not what I'm seeing here.
There are buildings where I'm from that have been standing with machinery capable of tearing limbs off for decades. Most of the companies no longer have any control over the buildings, and they're right in the middle of the city. Some have been turned into community centers and museums, and some are still standing just as historic sites. If a nuclear reactor's shutting down and being turned into an empty building the worst we have to fear is that there will be a lot of graffiti inside it within a few years.