Slashdot Mirror
The Cost of Caring For Elderly Nuclear Plants Expected To Rise
mdsolar writes with this story about the rising costs of keeping Europe's nuclear power plants safe and operational. Europe's aging nuclear fleet will undergo more prolonged outages over the next few years, reducing the reliability of power supply and costing plant operators many millions of dollars. Nuclear power provides about a third of the European Union's electricity generation, but the 28-nation bloc's 131 reactors are well past their prime, with an average age of 30 years. And the energy companies, already feeling the pinch from falling energy prices and weak demand, want to extend the life of their plants into the 2020s, to put off the drain of funding new builds. Closing the older nuclear plants is not an option for many EU countries, which are facing an energy capacity crunch as other types of plant are being closed or mothballed because they can't cover their operating costs, or to meet stricter environmental regulation.
The cost of caring for elderly _____ is expected to rise;
...and the list goes on.
1) Nuclear Plants
2) Houses
3) Windmills
4) Cars
5) Solar Installations
6) People
7) Factories
8) Roads
9) Bridges
Another amazingly useful submission to slashdot.
Because the alternative is to piss away a shit tonne of capital on retrofitting dangerous known-flawed designs in perpetuity.
We might see more elderly nuclear plants being put into homes.
Which imaginary world are you living in? Energy prices are high and evergy companies have been raking in massive profits for years.
And the energy companies, already feeling the pinch from falling energy prices and weak demand
Closing the older nuclear plants is not an option for many EU countries, which are facing an energy capacity crunch
Wait, which is it, is there too much electricity or not enough?
"Closing the older nuclear plants is not an option for many EU countries, which are facing an energy capacity crunch as other types of plant are being closed or mothballed because they can't cover their operating costs, or to meet stricter environmental regulation."
In short: While nuclear isn't perfect, it currently sucks less than any other alternative available.
(Renewables just aren't scalable enough yet.)
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
I didn't know nuclear plants were powered by the elderly. They told me grandma passed, and was in a better place. No one said that was inside a reactor.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
Let's keep this in perspective. It was submitted by mdsolar.
Either this is a "true believer" who worships and genuflects on PV panels, or a fossil fuel industry astroturfer. Did we really need another fact free FUD fest on this subject? In either case, his claims need to be taken very critically. I don't see any reasonable hope that mankind's energy needs can be met with only PV and other "renewable" sources. The numbers do not add up. Look up the French Revolution for an example of pretending that politics > math.
Bottom line: Until the last coal plant is shuttered, nuclear power needs to be a major, perhaps THE major, source of electricity if we care to preserve a global ecosystem even faintly resembling that of pre-industrial times.
Yes, operating and maintaining old nuclear reactors with outdated designs prone to meltdown is certainly safer than building new ones using better designs with more fault tolerance, and everything we've learned about nuclear disasters in the last 30 years. /sarcasm
For all of the laudable successes of the Environmental Movement in the late 20th Century (e.g. bans on DDT and chlorofluorocarbons, regulations to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions, habitat preservation), the anti-nuclear movement has to count as one of its great failures. These old plants are dangerous, and becoming increasingly so. Knee-jerk opposition to the construction of new nuclear facilities has made all of us less safe by encouraging obsolete plants (like Fukushima) to be patched together for another few decades because there is no alternative to meet power demand. Knee-jerk opposition to any waste respository has resulted in the highly dangerous on-site storage of spent fuel.
Environmental opposition to nuclear power has made nuclear power vastly more dangerous than it needs to be, which appears to be a deliberate strategy: if you are convinced beyond any reasoning that something is too dangerous to be used at all, then it becomes paradoxically sensible to work to make it as dangerous as possible so that other people will agree with your preconceived notions about the hazards. I'm not sure if this effect has a name yet. Proof by suicide?
Every power plant, whether it's fueled by oil, natural gas, coal, hydro or nuclear costs more to maintain as it gets older. Why is this news?Does the submitter think that only Nuclear power plants cost more to maintain as they age?
Putin is rubbing his hands together in glee. His money pit is almost finished, letting him finally go swimming in Rubles like Scrooge McDuck.
If the cost of energy continues to fall would that potentially entice the EU into forgoing improvements/maintenance on domestic (is it still considered domestic in this case?) production -- wouldn't that pretty much necessitate importing from Russia? And who is to say the current dip in prices is anything more than a blip on the radar?
Instead of spending more keeping the old ones running, we really should have built new cheaper and safer reactors. Instead vast amounts of money have been wasted on renewable energy while nothing has been spent on nuclear.
In the UK £120billion has been spent in the last five years on renewable energy (mostly wind) and yet we're facing the prospects of blackouts and brownouts. To make up for the shortcomings of renewables we'll have to burn more fissile fuels. Furthermore energy costs are rising to absurd levels to pay for these obscenely inefficient forms of power generation.
Had that £120billion been spent on nuclear we would have a cheap supply of energy that would more than meet our needs.
These sites have land close to cities (efficient), cooling, transmission lines, generators, etc. Basically, the problem with the old reactors is that they are old and are second generation.
What should be happening is that we should put on-site NEW multiple small 3+ gen reactors, such as mPower, to handle the loads, providing power/money for the company, while they take down the OLD reactors.
At the same time, we need to do a 4th gen reactor that will burn up the 'nuclear waste', and leave only 5% of the volume as well leave it safe in under 200 years (as opposed to 20,000+ years).
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Darn it. After I posted, I realized that I had moderation power. I would have modded you up.
I consider my an environmentalists, but a sane one. Hell, the primary reason why I became Libertarian was because both dems and pubs are responsible for so much destruction.
We desperately need an energy mix, not depending on just ONE TYPE of energy. Right now the greenies push wind/solar. Yet, BOTH depend on the sun, which means that if say yellowstone erupts, or China attacks and uses clouds over America first (China is working very hard on weather control and they DO consider it a form of military weaponary), then we would lose much of our power at the very moment that we need it the most.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I see nothing on there that makes it anti-nuke. I DO see him pointing out a REAL problem, which is that many of the old reactors are being extend past their lifetimes and NEED to be taken down. BUT, they really need to be replaced by new ones, not other forms of energy.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Follow the money. Who benefits from nuclear failure? That would be traditional energy sources (oil/ng). So who was funding the anti-nuclear movement?
Spread that FUD some more.
Both, there is too little demand because of years of energy saving campaigns (energy saving appliances, CLF/LED lights, etc) and too little power because they've been shutting down plants. Same thing has been going on there in the US, utilities arguing they have to raise their prices because of lower demand from energy savings & solar/wind integration after years of arguing that they had to impose smart metering & higher prices because the grid was being overloaded by too much power usage.
How is this in any way suprising? Putting it in car terms:
The Cost of Caring For Elderly Model T Fords Expected To Rise.
The fact that new plants have been banned for many years, we don't have anything in the US to compare the costs to. New technology would probably be much less expensive to maintain, but they are not permitted such updates for fear of a nuclear explosion. No companies are doing much development for new plants that are not going to be built.
We could probably be waving bye to the Middle East if the anti-nuke idiots didn't have such clout. But, they prefer burning oil and coal (and global warming) to nuclear power.
It' does make a nice political platform to garner votes from the usefull idiots the Democrats favor.
Nope. Horribly misinformed you are. Not worth discussing with you until you are educated on what currently available technology can accomplish, let alone near-future tech requiring only a handful of years of dedicated research.
Because I usually have to spell this out - I do NOT want you to change your opinion. I only want you informed so you stop spouting entirely incorrect information. There can be no discussion without agreement upon the basic science being discussed.
Start with just these two examples (out of many) and then let's talk:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candu
Sensationalism bullshit. Highly concentrated and deadly waste can be consumed by a molten salt reactor reducing the half life to ~300 years. Deep Geological Depositories such as Yucca Mountain could store the waste for that 300 years.
If it's too radioactive to be dangerous, then it's still can be used...
No. Get past your fear, embrace salt reactors, and use that "Waste" as fuel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
That's the strategy, folks: prevent nuclear reprocessing plants from getting built, so you can complain about the long-term nature of the spent fuel that reprocessing would have consumed.
Yup, that's the problem with not building any new nuclear plants. You left with only OLD ones !
Why the great concern about killing a handful of people thousands of years from now? More people have died in the world in the time it took me to write this than would likely die from exposure digging a thousand foot deep shaft thousands of years from now. Think about it:
You dig a shaft and no one that goes down it ever comes back up, how soon is it before you stop sending people down it and fill it in?
Nuclear power plants have greater value than first anticipated, so we're keeping them for longer than originally planned.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
The true cost of nuclear power is practically infinite, because we have to insure that highly concentrated and deadly waste must not come into contact with people's bodies for somewhere between 100,000 and 1,000,000 years into the future, depending upon the waste.
The true cost of coal power is practically infinite, because we have to insure that highly dispersed and deadly waste must not come into contact with people's bodies for somewhere between 10,000,000,000 and over 10^33 years into the future, depending upon the waste. (the latter is the lower limits on the half-life of mercury)
We have only had a writing system for 5,200 years (roughly speaking, the length of recorded history). How many people on Earth today could read a radiation warning written in cuneiform 5,200 years ago (or today)? Many civilizations on Earth have had periods of scientific and technological decline, and we've all read articles about knowledge from Ancient Rome or, more recently, the Renaissance being rediscovered today. How can we guarantee persistence of any scientific or technical knowledge?
How are we supposed to convey the message: "Don't touch any of this, or pass it around. You and anyone who touches this will die not instantly but within months of a painful death, perhaps after you have traveled a great distance" for 200x the length of recorded history?
How are we supposed to convey the message: Um, could you guys put all this mercury, uranium, and greenhouse gases from our coal power plants back into the ground for us? We were too lazy to do it ourselves, we were hoping you guys wouldn't mind. Also don't eat any fish from the ocean, they're full of poisonous mercury, sorry about that.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Reprocessing is just one step. In order to achieve a true closed cycle, we'll need fast neutron waste burners. We've built them. We've got designs ready to go. Some pilot commercial plants have already been built. And we've got refinements in the pipeline that will make them even better. Unfortunately, the modern environmental movement has turned into a religion and some of them are mistaking Slashdot for their soap box.
How are we supposed to convey the message: "Don't touch any of this, or pass it around. You and anyone who touches this will die not instantly but within months of a painful death, perhaps after you have traveled a great distance" for 200x the length of recorded history?
It's simple, you label it as being cursed. Worked so well for all the tombs we've found....
Agree completely with your comments, although the nuclear waste issue still strikes me as one that few people are taking seriously enough. The reaction is always the same, "Don't load that stuff on a train that travels through MY city!" "Don't bury that stuff anywhere near MY place!" So it winds up sitting right where it started, on-site at the plant, where it's, to say the least, not an ideal storage location.
We've seen a lot of technical innovation in the last 50 years or so, which makes me question why we can't seriously look into developing a new type of power generator that can use all of this "spent" radioactive waste as fuel? Even if the costs to construct it were prohibitive in the sense of it generating enough electricity to be profitable? It would seem to be a cheap solution as a place to put waste coming from the existing reactors.
As long as the nuclear waste contains so much energy, it's this dangerous to handle or store -- that means there's got to be untapped potential left in it.
How is there simultaneously a supply crunch and drop in prices? If there is a crunch, then prices will be raised until demand drops to an appropriate level, or more capacity will be built... unless major market distortions are in play which disrupt this relationship. I don't get it.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it dissolve.
The "Environmental Movement" is not one homogeneous group of people. There are tons of sensible, evidence-based people like myself that have always been pro-nuclear. Then there are the non-evidence based folks who are terrified of "radiation" and rub crystals of themselves to cleanse their chakra.
I would like to think that I'm in the mainstream and they're the fringe.
And what makes you think the solution to old, creaky, leaky, explodey reactors is to build more new reactors? Did you think the new reactors would 'replace' the old reactors? That's a bit naive. What these new reactors guarantee is that there'll be twice as many old, creaky, leaky, explodey reactors in 30 years time. We're fantastically bad at decommissioning old reactors that'll we'll be happy to extend our 50 year design to 100 years or 200 years and beyond.
Creating a bigger problem is not a solution.
Surprise! The government doesn't want to eliminate the waste because it can be used to make bombs. Those fast breeder reactors we keep hearing about? Yeah...they'll NEVER happen.
Anyway, the nuclear waste will have naturally eroded to nothing before Yucca Mountain ever opens so we have nothing to worry about. Actually, the entire universe will have collapsed and recycled into a brand new universe before Yucca Mountain ever opens. Actually, that would solve our nuclear waste problem nicely...
The above two quotes contradict each other. The first says there's weak demand, but the second says there's a "capacity crunch" (a shortage) which means there's too much demand. So which is it, a surplus of energy or a shortage of energy? It can't be both.
Resolving this contradiction will lead to the real problem. Then we can think about ways to solve it.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
The government has had a surplus of weapons grade materials for years, hell the number of nuclear warheads in the US has been declining since the 1960s! They currently have a SURPLUS of materials, not a shortage. But don't let facts stop your sensationalism.
Will Yucca ever open? Who knows, but the more FUD and sensationalism decreases it's chances. But that's for political reasons, not technical ones.
We have already done that. But the anti-nuke fear mongers are holding that technology back, by preventing funding for new power plants. You can read more about it here: http://transatomicpower.com/
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Thank Jimmy Carter for that one.
Ah, Rush Limbaugh's famous "Greenies made nuclear power unsafe" meme. A darling here on slashdot, despite so many annoying facts that tend to discredit it.
In the Real World ®, American Greens are the most ineffective political movement since the vegetarians. They have accomplished pretty much nothing since Nixon signed the Clean Air Act. The real actors are the majority of hard-headed average Americans (who are hardly "green", but who are sensible enough to know they don't want or need nuclear power) and the simple realities of market economics.
The cold hard truth is that no private entity has ever made an economically viable terrestrial nuclear fission power plant. Ever. Only socialist and totalitarian regimes can do it, because they can effectively ignore insurance costs, which the USA shouldn't (and although the Price-Andersen subsidies do exactly that, US plants still aren't cost-effective). In a truly free and fair market it would cost far more money for construction, insurance, and decommissioning than an operator could ever possibly recoup. Even the ultra-right wing Cato Institute admits this!
But terrestrial fission power plants are a masturbatory fantasy akin to Steampunkery, only with less whimsical charm. A fever dream of a world that never was, full of steam engines and glowing rocks. They are an obsolete and unnecessary technology fetishized by aficionados, who often seem to be quite willing to give up any form of representative government or free market if only they can have their beloved nuke plants. No tax burden is too high! Because it's not a reasoned argument for them, it's an obsession. So blaming the failings of their fellow travelers on their opposition fits their mindset perfectly - it couldn't possibly be the fault of the nuclear operators that they purposely built the cheapest, least safe designs allowed by law! It must have been those devil-greens! It's their fault!
> I consider my an environmentalists, but a sane one.
Perhaps you might want to stop referring to yourself in the multiple when telling us how sane you are.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
>In a truly free and fair market it would cost far more money for construction, insurance, and decommissioning than an operator could ever possibly recoup. Even the ultra-right wing Cato Institute admits this [reason.com]!
In a truly free and fair market, you'd be able to sue for the air pollution coming out of your neighbour's car, for the air pollution from the refinery, and for the pollution generated from various electricity manufacturing (assuming you live close enough to prove it makes it to your property). This is all the way from solar tiles, the manufacture of which is incredibly dirty, up to and including coal plants (for the obvious).
Nuclear is only expensive if you can download the costs of other tech onto others... socialism at work, my friend.
Maybe the educated nuclear aficionados out there can explain why the cost overruns and sloppy disposal work are the fault of greenpeace members.
yeah, I wish that we had editing on /. at times.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
We ALL do.
If you actually do the research, nuclear makes pollution too. Lots of it. Only coal is really significantly worse (and coal is way worse).
And although solar panels are pretty dirty to manufacture (because most of them are made in China using electricity from coal plants under a lax environmental regime) their long service life makes up for it - you'll note that the brownwash jobs that the anti-solar people push out every month always significantly misstate service life and always use China's data, ignoring the clean European producers. Don't buy that meme, either! The real problem with solar's the same as with nuclear, it's simply not economically viable. (Although it might be in the future, if we end up subsidizing solar R & D the way we've subsidized the oil industry over the last 100 years).
Take a look at the real data instead of the memes. Only socialist and totalitarian states can have terrestrial nuclear fission plants, for exactly the reason you gave - in essence, you have to force people to pay costs they don't want in order to provide fission plants they don't need.
Your point about externalizing costs is certainly valid, though. Everybody's misrepresenting the true costs of all forms of power production at this point!
Hmmm. While IFR would help, Candu will not. It is not a breeder.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
For all of the laudable successes of the Environmental Movement in the late 20th Century (e.g. bans on DDT and chlorofluorocarbons, regulations to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions, habitat preservation), the anti-nuclear movement has to count as one of its great failures. These old plants are dangerous,
Yes, the anti-nuclear movement told you that would happen, but you ignored them. That was a failure, but it was largely yours.
Environmental opposition to nuclear power has made nuclear power vastly more dangerous than it needs to be,
Riiiiiight. Blaming the victim, real nice. It's not the environmentalists' fault that these old plants are dangerous. That's your fault. You put yourself in the pro-nuclear camp; you want to be there, you can take your share of the responsibility for making this situation possible. Instead, of course, of blaming the people who warned you. Fuck you for that.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
You present a false choice. Nuclear or dirty fossil fuels.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
The energy source you are looking for is "coal". There's little actual competition between nuclear power and oil or natural gas. There are very few petroleum power plants and they tend to be in areas that have a lot of petroleum. Natural gas as a prevalent near-base load power source (rather than peaking load generator) is a recent phenomenon.
And why would any of these industries support environmentalists? In the short term, environmentalist opposition doesn't shut down nuclear plant competitors. In the long term, they'll get burned for any support they provide. The people who oppose nuclear power also strongly and deeply oppose fossil fuels too.
I think a much better explanation is public hysteria surrounding the word, "nuclear". It's bad enough that technology names have been changed to sound less threatening (for example, "nuclear magnetic resonance imaging" getting renamed to "magnetic resonance imaging" in the medical industry).
The ban on DDT, which you quote as a success story, is the main reason that malaria still kills millions today. Despite your defense of nuclear power, you still managed with that comment to jump onto the environmentalist propaganda bandwagon.
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
I agree that there was a great failure in the US to build out newer nuclear plants in the latter years of the 20th century. Unfortunately it isn't as clear as you state. Energy produces were spreading mis-information if not lies about nuclear power while the Environmental people were crying about the waste. Nuclear power is NOT without its drawbacks. I remember vividly having a PG&E rep come into our class and go through her whole spiel which included numerous falsehoods. When I called her on it she was literally dumbfounded that anyone would know enough to question her falsehoods. It took me YEARS to realize that while PG&E wasn't being trustworthy about nuclear power the other options where worse (generally). So the energy companies themselves hold some of the responsibility for the failure to build new generation nuclear reactors. People do not like being lied to or mislead and often will assume your goals are suspect because of it.
if we dont build it in the first place then we dont have to "save ourselfs" by replacing them. ... or else.
srsly sounds like doing a deal with the devil and then he squeezes you for more
isnt that a bit like corruption? once you start taking money under the table you cannot stop because "exposure" can now we used as leverage.
nuclear is a mistake for carbon based life forms. but like any drug addict its hard to stop once you are hocked.
And pro nuke spamming is also an interresting pattern!
The ban on DDT, which you quote as a success story, is the main reason that malaria still kills millions today. Despite your defense of nuclear power, you still managed with that comment to jump onto the environmentalist propaganda bandwagon.
I am an environmentalist. Leftie as all hell, thank you very much.
With respect to DDT, I cited that deliberately, despite the fact that malaria does indeed take a huge human toll which could (in principle) be mitigated by widespread used of DDT. The problem is the tradeoff: Wholesale collapse of ecosystems is too high a price to pay for even millions of human lives, because the long-term result will be even more lives lost, and more suffering inflicted. The bacteria are going to win, eventually. Burning down our own house to prevent that is both futile and self-destructive.
Candu can use unenriched fuel and burn it to a lower radioactivity than it came out of the ground with, to say nothing of "spent" fuel from a once through cycle. On 1960s technology.
And the lightwaters, while requiring more enrichment initially, will leave less after the fact, than what came out of the ground. IOW, like Candu, they also burn up a SMALL PORTION of it.
OTOH, MSRs, and IFRs can take what Candu and others can NOT use, and burn up 95% of it. And all at a fraction of the price
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Erm, you are mixing up stuff.
The anti nuclear horde always pointed out that the current plants are not safe. (And on top of that they don't want new ones).
And now you try to use that as a stick against them? Hey, lets build new nuclear plants (which are 'safer' ... but does that imply 'sade'?) so we can replace the old unsafe nuclear plants? Wow, and why did no one from the 'establishment' agree with them the last 50 years that the plants we operate said 50 years are unsafe? Wow, now as it seems convenient, for what ever reason, people start to agree?
If you have now 10billion dollars and build nuclear plants from it, instead of solar or wind plants (especially in Europe, China, India, Indonesia) you are simply plain stupid.
There is no way you earn more money with a nuclear plant.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
TFA is factually wrong on many counts.
The main reason we don't get new reactors in most european countries are political, not economical. In fact, power companies are doing fine and nuclear power is highly subsidized, mostly indirectly. New plants are expensive only on paper.
But the political culture has moved many countries into a very strange corner. Because the public dislikes nuclear power and wants it gone, but politicians don't (bribery, lobbyism, desire for energy-independence or wisdom in planning the future carefully - make your pick), you cannot get permission to build a new plant in many countries, but you can keep your old one running and extend its lifetime.
The second reason is economic, but of a different kind: Since these plants were originally designed for 20-30 years, which are long past, their value in the financial statement is 1 Euro. Which gives them incredibly cute key figures - they look really good in financial analysis. Actually, in reality too, because due to stupid/bought laws, the government will pay for large parts of the waste disposal, and the amount companies need to pay into a fund to pay for deconstruction is, by many experts opinion, only a fraction of what is needed. But once they actually deconstruct most of the plants, the game is up. Like any good scam, you need to keep it going as long as possible.
So thanks to management-think in both politics and business, we have some of the oldest nuclear power plants in the world, right next to some very large cities.
And, btw., I like nuclear power. I wouldn't mind having the old plants replaced by modern ones. But I agree with the anti-nuclear-power people that right now, we have the worst possible solution.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
If the original article used actual statistics, perhaps you would not have made this foolish comment. According to the latest (2014) statistics from the EU (http://ec.europa.eu/energy/publications/doc/2014_pocketbook.pdf): Nuclear accounts for 11.7 percent of World Electricity Generation and renewables account for 20 percent.
If we look at energy production (2011), nuclear accounts of 5.1 percent and renewables for 12.9 percent.
~_~ Not tonight, dear, I have a modem.
And all tombs we found were opened almost imediatly after that. :D
Erm, you are mixing up stuff.
The anti nuclear horde always pointed out that the current plants are not safe. (And on top of that they don't want new ones).
And now you try to use that as a stick against them?
The plants weren't unsafe when they were built. They are unsafe now because they are far beyond their design lifetime. We have better plant designs now. Why is this so hard to understand?
That page isn't a paper, it isn't peer reviewed, it's a blog and it's 6 years old (before Fukushima)
Totally informative, the mod you deserve, but I see the nuclear mod trolls are out in force suppressing information to push their fanboi barrow.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
1) Anything we built that is several decades old will need increasing amounts of maintenance.
2) Environmental regulation has increased costs over the last several decades.
3) Inflation has increased over the last several decades.
All of this means that the cost of caring for these facilities will increase. Notice I didn't say nuclear once in any of that.
I was not aware Europe had a nuclear fleet. I thought all their ships except UK and some French submarines used other means of propulsion.
(Humor, no need to reply.)
Tracy Johnson
Old fashioned text games hosted below:
http://empire.openmpe.com/
BT
The fact that they are beyond their designed lifetime makes them not 'more unsafe'.
After all they get routinely maintained.
They are exactly as safe as they where when they where designed and crafted. Likley even safer as they likely got improved due to improved materials and improved control etc.
Same question to you: Why is that so hard to understand?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
I thought it was DDT resistant mosquitoes
t can be estimated that at current rates each kilo of insecticide added to the environment will generate 105 new cases of malaria
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
My Transformation Website
Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st