Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Decommissioning Nuclear Plants Costing Far More Than Expected

Posted by Soulskill on from the have-you-tried-selling-them-to-evil-masterminds dept.

Lasrick writes: "This article takes a look at cost estimates of nuclear power plant decommissioning from the 1980s, and how widely inaccurate they turned out to be. This is a pretty fascinating look at past articles in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists that consistently downplayed the costs of decommissioning, for example: 'The Yankee Nuclear Power Station in Rowe, Massachusetts, took 15 years to decommission—or five times longer than was needed to build it. And decommissioning the plant—constructed early in the 1960s for $39 million—cost $608 million. The plant's spent fuel rods are still stored in a facility on-site, because there is no permanent disposal repository to put them in. To monitor them and make sure the material does not fall into the hands of terrorists or spill into the nearby river costs $8 million per year.'"

5 of 288 comments (clear)

  1. why don't we keep them and use them? by valpo+homeboy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    How about a study on the cost of upgrading? All that infrastructure, real estate, containment vessel, gen set, distribution hardware, cooling .... has to be worth something? How about reprocessing the fuel to reduce its volume and remove the plutonium? I agree with first poster, killing each and every lawyer peripherally involved with the project is the first step.

    1. Re:why don't we keep them and use them? by confused+one · · Score: 5, Insightful

      By the time they decommission a reactor it is usually 30 or 40 years old. By that point everything is worn out. You could save some hardware and infrastructure; but, you would be replacing most of the equipment, including all the expensive bits. You'd basically end up tearing it all out and rebuilding it new. Car analogy: I'm restoring a 40 year old truck. Engine had to be torn down to raw casting and rebuilt with all new parts (only I didn't have to deal with neutron damage or metal embrittlement) The truck chassis and body: Well, I'm tearing everything off the frame and I'm starting from there. It will all get disassembled, cleaned, repaired and painted, then go back through a complete re-assembly process using factory manuals. When I'm done, it'll be a 30-40% new 40 year old truck. If you count my time at typical shop labor rates, it could end up costing almost as much as just going down to the dealer and stroking a check for a brand new one. The new one would probably be safer...

  2. Re:It is expensive and it always will be. by macpacheco · · Score: 5, Informative

    Spent fuel is 96% fuel. Combined with the depleted uranium its 99% fuel. It just takes a more efficient reactor to burn it.
    Nuclear energy is orders of magnitude environmentally cleaner even than natural gas.
    The main issue is nuclear regulators decided to make it economically unfeasible to to nuclear power.
    Learn about it and you will find out you are wrong.
    https://class.coursera.org/nuc...

  3. Re:First.... by penguinoid · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Also got to kill the stupid environmentalists (only the stupid kind that are opposed to nuclear because it contains the word "nuclear", to coal, oil and gas cause it contains carbon, to hydroelectric cause of sediments, to wind cause of birds, to solar cause of toxic elements during production, ...). Sadly, there aren't enough environmentalists who can look at the whole picture and realize that nuclear plants produce less radioactive waste than coal plants, skyscrapers kill more birds than wind power, etc., and that if they want to accomplish something they need to support a realistic objective.

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
  4. France: 75% of electricity from nuclear ... by perpenso · · Score: 5, Informative

    Nuclear power has always been a pipe dream of some sort.

    Not in France.

    "France derives over 75% of its electricity from nuclear energy. This is due to a long-standing policy based on energy security.
    France is the world's largest net exporter of electricity due to its very low cost of generation, and gains over EUR 3 billion per year from this.
    France has been very active in developing nuclear technology. Reactors and fuel products and services are a major export.
    It is building its first Generation III reactor.
    About 17% of France's electricity is from recycled nuclear fuel."
    http://www.world-nuclear.org/i...