Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Delays, Confusion as Toshiba Reports $6 Billion Nuclear Hit and Slides To Loss (reuters.com)

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the delays-and-confusion dept.

Makiko Yamazaki, reporting for Reuters: After a day of delays and confusion, Japan's Toshiba said on Tuesday it expected to book a $6.3 billion hit to its U.S. nuclear unit, a writedown that wipes out its shareholder equity and will drag the group to a full-year loss. Hours earlier on Tuesday, the battered conglomerate rattled investors by failing to release its earnings on schedule, saying initially it was 'not ready' and then announcing later it needed more time to probe its Westinghouse nuclear business after internal reports uncovered potential problems. The figures eventually released were numbers that have yet to be approved by its auditor and Toshiba cautioned investors that a major revision was possible. Fully audited numbers are now not due till March 14 after the firm was granted a reprieve for its formal filing by Japanese regulators. "Finally now people are starting to recognize that internal control problems, the accounting issues and governance issues are very real and no longer abstract," said Zuhair Khan, an analyst at Jefferies in Tokyo. "They impact the viability of the company."

55 of 88 comments (clear)

  1. China and South Korea and Russia can do it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Countries that want to and commit to building nuclear can do it well, on decent schedule and budget. A half ass commitment will fail for any large project, be it nuclear or other.

    1. Re:China and South Korea and Russia can do it by mspohr · · Score: 2

      Part of Toshiba's problem is the reactors they are building in China.
      Nuclear has gone from "too cheap to meter" to "too expensive to matter".

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    2. Re: China and South Korea and Russia can do it by mspohr · · Score: 1

      Except the nuclear reactors that Toshiba is building in China... the usual story... delays, cost overruns.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    3. Re: China and South Korea and Russia can do it by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      The delays in China were basically one-two year delays while all the new reactors being built were reviewed post-Fukushima. It had little to do with construction problems. There is only one reactor family with major construction delays which can be imputable to the design and construction right now and that is EPR.

    4. Re:China and South Korea and Russia can do it by cheesybagel · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yet nuclear is still subsidizing the renewables in Germany and elsewhere last time I looked at it. Funny uh?

    5. Re:China and South Korea and Russia can do it by darkpixel2k · · Score: 1, Insightful

      No, that's not it. Running overbudget is more of a customer problem and is usually caused by customer changes in the middle of construction.

      Exactly. It's a customer problem. You originally wanted the walls of the control room painted white. We haven't even started building the control room yet, let alone purchased the paint and you are changing the requirement to 'grey'? That'll obviously cost you 1.6 million in additional fees.

      Have you never worked in contracting before?

      Roofers quoted me $2,500 to re-shingle my house two years ago. They started the process, then found 4 sheets of OSB that were slightly water damaged and needed to be replaced. So one of them drove to Home Depot and bought 6 sheets of OSB. Total cost for everything with the 4 sheets of OSB (and the 2 'spares')? $8,700.

      --
      There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)
    6. Re:China and South Korea and Russia can do it by mspohr · · Score: 2

      Your comment doesn't make any sense...
      Here's Wikipedia's entry for Germany:
      Germany[edit]
      "Comparison of the levelized cost of electricity for some newly built renewable and fossil-fuel based power stations in euro per kWh (Germany, 2013)
      In November 2013, the Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems ISE assessed the levelised generation costs for newly built power plants in the German electricity sector.[39] PV systems reached LCOE between 0.078 and 0.142 Euro/kWh in the third quarter of 2013, depending on the type of power plant (ground-mounted utility-scale or small rooftop solar PV) and average German insolation of 1000 to 1200 kWh/m per year (GHI). There are no LCOE-figures available for electricity generated by recently built German nuclear power plants as none have been constructed since the late 1980s."
      Wind is cheaper than hard coal in Germany. PV is only a little more expensive in Germany.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    7. Re:China and South Korea and Russia can do it by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 5, Informative

      > Countries that want to and commit to building nuclear can do it well, on decent schedule and budget

      Uhh, yeah.

      Over the years, Russia has committed to building something like 50 reactors. After Chernobyl, that was reduced to something like 25. They have grand plans for a closed fuel cycle using breeder/burners and reprocessing, and lots of other ideas. So far they've successfully built three. The rest remain hopelessly overdue or completely unfunded. They have decommed as many as they've built since 2000.

      China had big plans too, something between 50 and 100 reactors over a 25 to 45 year period. Then the 2008 Sichuan earthquake happened, and they learned that all the construction companies lied and cut corners practically everywhere. The famous school that collapsed only did so because the construction team couldn't be bothered to bend the end of the rebars in the vertical supports, which would have otherwise easily survived. This, needless to say, opened many people's eyes, and the plans have been scaled back to about 25 reactors.

      However, these plans are very much in doubt. CNNC based much of its economic arguments on buying up old western designs and then selling them, with Chinese financing, around the world. This did not happen, no one is interested in building nuclear and sales have been rather limited. As a result, the government has been somewhat more interested in renewables, which everyone is buying, and the country has since become the largest installer of wind and solar on the planet. They install more PV in the last five years than the entire planned nuclear buildout.

      Nuclear is dead. Siemens, Framitome, AECL, Westinghouse, Toshiba, B&W, BNFL, and on and on and on. The few remaining players are all on life support - GE looks very much like they'll end development with their current generation, Areva only remains alive due to repeated massive French taxpayer infusions, and CNNC's only prospects are local.

      You can pretend this isn't true, and many people reply to my messages talking about all these paper plans, but to anyone that's actually worked in the energy industry, the CAPEX > $7.50 is a death knell and everyone knows it.

    8. Re:China and South Korea and Russia can do it by Humbubba · · Score: 1

      Maybe Japan's economic woes were the deciding factor in Toshiba's purchase of the plague-ridden Westinghouse Nuclear Division. But with a "hit" of over 6 billion bucks, the deal was definitely not "clean, safe, too cheap to meter." And with plants throughout Europe, the US and South Korea, I won't be surprised if Toshiba is in for even more trouble.

    9. Re:China and South Korea and Russia can do it by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      https://www.dissentmagazine.or...
      To escape long blackouts many times a year, Germany is planning to back up every gigawatt of wind and solar average capacity with another gigawatt of gas or coal. As it builds its intermittent fleet it will not be able to shut down existing fossil-fueled plants; they will remain in service, complete with staff, maintenance, and overhead expenses and the infrastructure of transmission lines, coal mines, and gas pipelines. And because the dispatchable nuclear generators that could have backed up wind and solar are being shuttered, additional coal and gas plants must be built to take their place—as we see happening now. Those coal and gas plants will emit large quantities of greenhouse gases even when idling in standby mode. ...
      Onshore wind is currently guaranteed at least €89.3 per megawatt-hour (MWh) for the first five years of operation, after which the tariff resets to about €49, a little above market rate. Offshore wind will get €150 per MWh for the first twelve years before a downward reset, with long extensions if the facility is located more than twelve miles from shore or where water is at least twenty meters deep. Photovoltaic solar gets roughly €120-180 per MWh, depending on the size of the rig, for a full twenty years. The tariffs are funded by a “renewable energy surcharge” added to electricity bills. A utility will pay a FIT of, say, €180 for a megawatt-hour of solar power; it will then sell that electricity on the wholesale market for perhaps €45 and charge the difference to the renewables surcharge.       ...
      Even as the Energiewende staggers under exorbitant costs, renewables boosters tout its success in lowering electricity prices. The strange truth is, they’re not wrong. Tides of wind and solar electricity are forcing down prices on European wholesale markets and eroding the profits of conventional plants. French business leaders have complained about the competitive advantage their German rivals get because their renewable power is now cheaper than France’s nuclear electricity.
      Is renewable power winning a price war with Big Fossil and Nuclear? Not really. Germany’s feed-in tariffs disguise the fact that intermittent wind and solar power isn’t cheap at all—although it is often worthless. German grid operators are legally required to buy all the electricity wind turbines and solar panels produce, demand or no demand, at prices far above market rates. Having bought it, they then have to get rid of it, because an excess of electricity supply will crash the grid. So they dump it on the wholesale electricity market at bargain-basement rates. Midday solar dumps in sunny weather particularly eat into the profits of conventional plants by pushing down prices during times of elevated demand.
      These subsidies and market distortions do not yield a systemic lowering of electricity costs. They are simply transfers from German households that drastically overpay on surcharges to renewable generators—and to electricity-hogging industries that are exempt from surcharges but benefit from lower wholesale electricity prices when wind and solar flood the market.

    10. Re: China and South Korea and Russia can do it by mspohr · · Score: 1

      This article is bullshit.
      There is no such thing as dispatchable nuclear or coal. These plants are 100% on or off and it takes days or weeks to turn them on.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    11. Re: China and South Korea and Russia can do it by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Nuclear can be ramped up and down. It's not as fast as a natural gas plant but it can do fast load-follow especially if the load is highly predictable. Even modern coal power plants can do it to a degree and theoretically a coal gasification plant could ramp up and down as quickly as a natural gas power plant.

    12. Re: China and South Korea and Russia can do it by mspohr · · Score: 1

      Nuclear output can only be reduced by a small amount and only slowly. It can't be increased again due to poisoning of the core.
      Coal gasification could be dispatchable but the plants, for the most part, don't exist (only 272 worldwide). They also produce a lot of toxic compounds.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
  2. don't know a business? don't buy it. by swschrad · · Score: 2

    appears there was horrid due diligence all the way down the line when Toshiba decided to go for the Westinghouse nuke business as Westinghouse shed its skin to become CBS. and then one bad addition after another. shame.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  3. Other problems by tomhath · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Shares in the group slid 8 percent, putting the company's market value at 973 billion yen ($8.6 billion), less than half its value in mid-December. Just under a decade ago, the firm was worth almost 5 trillion yen.

    Lost over 80% of it's market value in ten years. Sounds like Toshiba has other problems besides this.

    1. Re:Other problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I see value, buy!

    2. Re:Other problems by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Toshiba has certainly had it's fair share of problems lately, but in this instance it's the nuclear division that is specifically underperforming.

      Basically low demand, low profitability, and poor management are to blame.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  4. Don't let the door hit... by cellocgw · · Score: 1

    As I've posted before, Fuck Toshiba and the [generic beast of burden] they rode in on. They have by far the worst consumer customer service I've ever run across.

    --
    https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    1. Re:Don't let the door hit... by b0bby · · Score: 4, Funny

      Thanks, I'll make sure to get my next nuclear power plant from someone else!

    2. Re:Don't let the door hit... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Toshiba Customer Support: Hello, and thank you for calling Toshiba Customer Support. How can I help you today?
      cellocgw: There's hole burning through the bottom of my Toshiba Nuclear Power Plant and it's really, really hot in here. What should I do?
      TCS: Have you tried rebooting?
      c: Yes, I've tried rebooting. I've also pulled the core out while the reactor was on and then re-inserted to core and turned it back on. That's how I fix my Blackberry.
      TCS: Great. What happened when you did that?
      c: I got even hotter and now my hand is swelling up.
      TCS: Good, that shows the core is still working. Is you're reactor connected to the Internet? Can you request Remote Assistance?
      c: Sure, doing that now.
      TCS: What credit card will you be using to pay for today's Remote Assistance?
      c: What, I'm not paying?!?
      TCS: Sir, the warranty on your reactor expired yesterday.
      c: What?!? Fuck Toshiba and the [generic beast of burden] they rode in on. You have by far the worst consumer customer service I've ever run across.

    3. Re:Don't let the door hit... by dwywit · · Score: 1

      Never dealt with Asus, I suspect.

      I'm rather displeased with Toshiba, too, but not for that reason. They've pulled out of the low-end and consumer laptop business, which is a shame, because in 10 years I've only had one customer with a fault that required talking to Toshiba customer support.

      Now I've got to find a new brand that has similar reliability. Perhaps I'll give Lenovo a try - wouldn't touch HP with a ten-foot pole.

      --
      They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
  5. Re:Nuclear: too dangerous, too expensive by mspohr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wind and solar are getting to the point where they'll be cheaper than coal (without subsidies). Nuclear is the most expensive.

    --
    I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
  6. Re:Nuclear: too dangerous, too expensive by bsolar · · Score: 1

    Then subsidize them: if it works like with mass-transit it would be a win given that subsidizing mass-transit is a *very* effective policy.

  7. Re: Nuclear: too dangerous, too expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Point to a single credible levelized cost per MWh analysis that shows this. Solar and wind are still quite expensive on average, even when you don't factor in the cost if intermittency management.

  8. My HDs and Toshiba's Profits by bigdady92 · · Score: 1

    both melted down this weekend. Good. Never buy a toshiba hard drive, any overheating and they cook faster than a radiated cockroach during a thermonuclear holocaust. That and their warranty sucks nuts too.

    Hope they all burn, now give me my damn RMA

    --
    Wheel of Time: Book by Book and Sumview (summary review) Bigdady92 style: http://bigdady92.blogspot.com/
  9. Re: Nuclear: too dangerous, too expensive by magarity · · Score: 1

    Encase in ceramic, drop into a deep subduction zone. Earth will recycle them over the next million years.

  10. Re:Nuclear: too dangerous, too expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Wind and solar are getting to the point where they'll be cheaper than coal (without subsidies). Nuclear is the most expensive.

    That's not correct. Not with gas so cheap due to fracking.

    Solar has higher maintenance costs than the solar guys want to admit. Wind has issues with capacity, NIMBY issues, and environmental concerns with bird migrations. Because no utility scale power storage works anywhere (Powerwalls won't cut it), both have problems with generating electricity to meet demand, which power generation must meet on a minute by minute basis. And no, the fully capitalized cost of wind and solar are still way above the fully capitalized cost of natural gas.

    Nuclear is the cheapest even fully capitalized if run at capacity and efficiently, but nuclear has trouble scaling costs and generation to demand too; it basically has to be run at full capacity all the time to be effective.

    No, there is no alternative energy that is even remotely economical for a full replacement of fossil fuels. Most people try to play off solar and wind as economical, but those are modeled costs, not real costs which has to factor in utilization rates and down time relative to demand. Fossil fuel plants are cheap to make, gas is cheap and will continue to be as fracking continues, and easily scale generation to the demands of the grid. Until there is a major breakthrough allowing utility scale power storage, no alternative method of power generation will compete or be economical.

  11. Re: Nuclear: too dangerous, too expensive by tomhath · · Score: 1

    Which is why Jimmy Carter's executive order to halt recycling was so stupid. Hopefully that will be reversed soon.

  12. Re: Nuclear: too dangerous, too expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So, responsible governments allow reprocessing, and consequently have this problem figured out. Yucca mountain is a problem caused by Jimmy Carter's ignorant, foolish decision to prohibit reprocessing fuel rods. Almost all of the scary radioactive elements in a first run fuel rod are sources of energy that we're throwing away right now, and plan to bury, instead of doing the environmentally and fiscally responsible thing and reprocessing them.

  13. Re:Nuclear: too dangerous, too expensive by higuita · · Score: 1, Insightful

    WTF!
    buidling a nuclear plant is a HUGE investment... true that it have a long life...but you are just another one that thinks that nuclear waste do not cost any money and somebody else problem. For you and anybody that think like this, you and your family (and all future childrends) should move next to a nuclear waste storage and not leave for thousand of years

    --
    Higuita
  14. Re:Nuclear: too dangerous, too expensive by cheesybagel · · Score: 1, Informative

    I've been hearing that for two decades now. It still isn't true.

  15. Do we still need nuclear? by butchersong · · Score: 1

    Has solar reached the point where nuclear isn't necessary? I realize that storage is still a big issue but on such a large scale, it would seem there would be a number of solutions for this other than traditional battery storage and maybe it makes more sense to have largely independent homes or subdivisions each with their own storage than single unit large scale power plants going forward. As bullish as I used to feel about nuclear, it just seems passé these days.

    1. Re:Do we still need nuclear? by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      Going from memory, but I did the math for an off-grid house at 34 degrees latitude some time back, with a winter daily energy consumption of 18kWh and summer around 28-30. With 40kWh of battery, I would need 15kW of PV on a 2-axis tracker plus a 2kW generator that would need to run about 40 hours per year. To get the generator down to 8 hours per year, I needed to double the battery. This left me "burning" half my annual energy production, as there was no need for all the summer production.

      In essence, this is the challenge for solar. Half the energy you produce, if deployed everywhere, is useless, and storage has diminishing returns. My system would have a cost of ~$75,000, but would only offset $36k of utility bills. A net-metered solution would only cost $18k to offset the energy use.

      Who wants to pay 2-3x for their electricity?

      Now some caveats: the idea for the home was not to be off-grid, on-propane, so all cooking and heating were electric, which is inherently a non-economical decision. The home also had higher than optimal energy consumption for an off-grid design; a few less essential functions would need to be shut off, temperature reduced in the winter, cooking focused on noon time, etc, to make it really work. But, it is a fair comparison for grid economics.

    2. Re:Do we still need nuclear? by dwywit · · Score: 1

      If you were to replace electric heating with gas/wood, and electric cooking with gas (or wood), your daily kWh (of electrical demand) would plummet. Any electrical heating element is a killer for off-grid use.

      Is air-conditioning part of the consideration? Are you planning to live somewhere that you might do without it? Is your off-grid house going to have some passive cooling designs?

      If you want to go off-grid, you've *got* to change your outlook. In order to avoid spending more money on PV, batteries, and backup generator fuel, your whole approach to energy use must change. Do an energy aufit of your current usage, and decide how much of that could be made more efficient, e.g. LED to replace incandescent lighting.

      FWIW, my house of 2 adults and 2 teenagers used ~9kWh daily when I last did an audit. No aircon, no electric heating or cooking, all wood and gas. All but one of us use a laptop instead of energy-hungry desktops, and we don't do without anything else, except blackouts.

      --
      They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
    3. Re:Do we still need nuclear? by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      Completely agree and understand; the plan was mainly an energy balance exercise and I understood the stupidity of trying to do it that way (if it was real) when I started. But, when you scale it to a discussion about the overall grid and means of stored energy it is relevant.

    4. Re:Do we still need nuclear? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Burning wood may be fine for individuals or families, but as you scale up into the hundreds of thousands or millions of households, you get a lot of smog/smoke, and then you run out of trees.

  16. Re: Nuclear: too dangerous, too expensive by butchersong · · Score: 1

    Just continue screwing over the people of New Mexico. Problem solved.

  17. Re:Nuclear: too dangerous, too expensive by butchersong · · Score: 1

    I'm by no means an expert but recent media has made this seem to be the case. Comparison image

  18. Re:Nuclear: too dangerous, too expensive by networkBoy · · Score: 2

    jokes on your great great great grandchildren then as my great great great grandchildren will be atomic supermen by then!

    --
    whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
  19. Re:Nuclear: too dangerous, too expensive by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

    Wind works as a diverse source across a wide region. For it to work well at scale in the US, you would need to connect the east coast and west coast electrical grids, although there are plenty of things you can do at smaller scale. The PowerWall doesn't work at the windmill, but it works as a bridge between grid peaks in generation and utilization. Natural gas and hydro can do the same thing, depending on where the choke points are.

  20. Re:Nuclear: too dangerous, too expensive by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

    I'm by no means an expert but recent media has made this seem to be the case.

    Your image showed the most expensive nuclear as cheaper than the cheapest residential solar. Utility-scale solar was comparable to, or cheaper than, nuclear, but that didn't include the required back-up power (your utility-scale unit is just as susceptible to clouds as your home system, which requires a backup)....

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  21. Re:Nuclear: too dangerous, too expensive by olau · · Score: 1

    True, but only because wind and solar now ARE cheaper than coal (*), if you compare new generation, i.e. building a new plant.

    * Of course, this depends on your location.

  22. Re:Nuclear: too dangerous, too expensive by mspohr · · Score: 2, Informative

    Believe it or not, a lot has changed in 20 years.
    To get you up to date, here's a good article (with real data) showing solar and wind are cheaper than coal and nuclear:
    https://cleantechnica.com/2016...
    Short version for the click impaired: $Cost per MWh: Wind $32, Solar $39, Coal $60, Nuclear $97
    These are unsubsidized prices for wind and solar... coal and nuclear are the subsidized prices and do not include the cost of external damage.
    "A study led by the former head of the Harvard Medical School found that coal cost the US $500 billion per year in extra health and environmental costs — approximately 9/kWh ($90/MWh) to 27/kWh ($270/MWh) more than the price we pay directly. To fool yourself into thinking these are not real costs is to assume that cancer, heart disease, asthma, and early death are not real.
    The air, water, and climate effects of natural gas are not pretty either. On the nuclear front, the decommissioning and insurance costs of nuclear power — unaccounted for above — would also put nuclear off the chart."

    --
    I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
  23. Re:Nuclear: too dangerous, too expensive by mspohr · · Score: 1

    If you don't count the cost of building the plant, solar and wind beat everything hands down since they don't have any ongoing fuel cost and only minimal maintenance cost.

    --
    I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
  24. Re:Nuclear: too dangerous, too expensive by ras · · Score: 1

    In reality they have just crossed another milestone: they are cheaper when they are generating. That will do for now while there is substantial fossil capacity to back them up, but if we are to phase out fossil fuels entirely the figure you have to compare nuclear to is generation plus storage.

    The cheapest by far is pumped storage. In countries with plenty of hydro it's effectively free. For the rest of us it's about $1/watt generation capacity. Nuclear comes in at $8/watt or so. Wind comes in at $4/watt and solar is hitting parity with that, so even with storage renewables are cheaper. Nuclear is already history.

    An argument I often see here is there are no sites available for pumped storage. Turns out that's wrong. Here in Australia (which is mostly flat desert) we did a survey recently. You need is a hill where you build a dam about 500m in diameter, that has a valley about 400m below within 3km or so. Turns out the country is littered with literally 10's of thousands of sites like this.

    None of this is free of course - you still have to spend the $5/watt or so. Australia's energy consumption is 50GW, so that totals AU$250 Billion. That's a metric fuck ton of money to a small country like Australia. But as it happens out coal generation facilities are near retirement, so we would have to spend it anyway.

  25. Re:Nuclear: too dangerous, too expensive by mspohr · · Score: 1

    People often complain that wind and solar are intermittent whereas nuclear is 100% all the time (as is most coal electricity production).
    In use, power plants which can't be throttled back for times of low demand are as much a problem as power plants which vary their output during the day.
    You are right that the grid needs storage. It's crazy hard to match supply to demand when your demand changes all the time and your supply doesn't magically follow the demand.

    --
    I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
  26. Re:Nuclear: too dangerous, too expensive by ras · · Score: 1

    In use, power plants which can't be throttled back for times of low demand are as much a problem as power plants which vary their output during the day.

    Yeah, but they handle that by varying demand. To wit: most of coal here have an aluminium plant pair with them, who get their power for near free. They take the excess supply. It's not a total solution because the price of power here goes negative most nights (ie, the coal power generators PAY others to take their power) - so they are offloading some of it onto the rest of the grid as well. But to me that's fair, as ultimately the coal and nuclear power plants are paying the price for their inability to follow the load by giving away the energy. Currently wind and solar are offloading the cost of not being able to supply when needed to the rest of the grid. Clearly they will have to pay the cost one day - probably by giving their excess power away to pump storage operators, who then get to sell it later.

    How we pay for the peak demand pumped storage, which still costs $5/watt but is only used a couple of days a year is an interesting question. But we have the exactly the same issue with transmission lines - we have to pay a huge amount extra to cope with demand imposed by just a few days a year. We managed it, so I guess we will manage it with pumped storage too.

  27. Re: Nuclear: too dangerous, too expensive by mspohr · · Score: 1

    This was posted below:
    https://cleantechnica.com/2016...
    The data is from Lazard Asset Management... a reputable source.

    --
    I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
  28. Re:Nuclear: too dangerous, too expensive by mspohr · · Score: 1

    Here is some real data from a financial firm showing wind and solar to be cheaper:
    https://cleantechnica.com/2016...
    Do you have any references for your WAG assertions?

    --
    I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
  29. Re:Nuclear: too dangerous, too expensive by mspohr · · Score: 1

    Here's another data point.
    The West's largest coal power plant will be shut down decades before the end of it's useful life because it's "too expensive" to operate.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com...

    --
    I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
  30. AP1000 by MrKaos · · Score: 1

    It's not a very good product. That's why Toshiba is loosing money on this business.

    The suspended emergency cooling system makes the containment building a heat exchanger and a pressure vessel in case of an emergency. Not that that's a bad idea, however it's an untested design improvement. It's little wonder clients would be wary, with all the terrorism now a days.

    Its primary competitor is the EPR reactor whose containment building is double walled and resistant to military attacks, so it's a much tougher product in comparison.

    It's a shame that Toshiba's business is affected by this, but if it means no more AP1000s, that's probably not a thing to be too upset about, these are not the only flaws in the design and it doesn't make sense to complain about capitalism when it is working.

    EPRs were planned for US deployment last time I looked at the NRCs proposed deployments so perhaps EPR deployments will take over the AP1000s proposed there. The most appealing features I see is that EPR buildings are divided into four functional trains that can assume control of functions of the other buildings, and the control room is detached from the reactor, which mean better survivability for the operators, which means they have a better chance of getting things under control when there is an emergency.

    So it will be interesting to see how this all plays out.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  31. Re:Nuclear: too dangerous, too expensive by doom · · Score: 1

    Nuclear is the cheapest even fully capitalized if run at capacity and efficiently, but nuclear has trouble scaling costs and generation to demand too; it basically has to be run at full capacity all the time to be effective.

    Which would mean we have a choice between "renewables" combined with very dirty coal or somewhat-cleaner-but-still-dirty methane; or going with an all nuclear strategy which would give us large quantities of zero-emissions energy.

    But that must, of course, be wrong. It violates the prime directive.

  32. Re:return to profits is easy... by higuita · · Score: 1

    True, both ways generate huge profits for the stock owners and CEO at the cost of the common people.

    But all new techs have bubbles and from the thousand of companies that show up, only a few will survive and grow, all others will go bust. Those that invest need to know how to choose and what to choose. Nuclear included

    --
    Higuita
  33. Re:Nuclear: too dangerous, too expensive by higuita · · Score: 1

    it's the only power generation, at all, that's pre-funding cleanup..
    LOL!
    if you don't even know how much that cleanup will cost, how it is funding it!
    they must put some cleanup money now, because later may not be any money for that (company went bust) and the cleanup is REQUIRED due the time scale of the dangers, but you are crazy to think that money will be enough.
    Petrol, coal, gas, solar, water, etc may have a "half live" contamination of some years and about 100 years for the structures (maybe a little more for dams). Nuclear is thousand of years... some elements are millions of years. yes, pre-pay that because you will not rise from the dead to pay it later

    Rock do not protect you from leaks ->water sheet contamination->food chain.
    Also due the time scale, caves can collapse or give alternative open access and spread the radioactive elements
    Finally, malicious usage of the waste are also on the table, as again this is a ultimate weapon that can devastate a huge area.
    you have to protect this wastes for thousand of years... in containers that were designed to last 100 years (and as we see, are even lasting that long!)

    But if it so safe, go live near one of the waste storage.

    Recycling the nuclear waste may help, but it is also expensive and still do not solve all the problem, you just get more concentrate and dangerous nuclear waste that you still have to store. Maybe later there is a way to recycle the recycled waste, who knows!
    One of the problems of recycling the nuclear waste is that you need to move very dangerous waste all around the countries. Accident may happen and even worse, terrorist attacks

    2/3 is legal fees and other shit?! are you high?! there are requirements because this is dangerous, without then companies will sooner or later cut corners. but building a nuclear plan is huge investment due the all things needed, not because legal fees. just check how much it cost to build the protective casing in Chernobyl... there was no legal fees and it is now a full plant

    --
    Higuita
  34. Nuclear Power is a Loser by herbierobinson · · Score: 1

    The only nuclear business that might make sense is recycling nuclear waste. Eventually, there will be desperate customers. The catch is that it may take a long time for the politicians to figure out there is no other way to get rid of nuclear waste.

    --
    An engineer who ran for Congress. http://herbrobinson.us