The question is do modern reactors fall far enough into the safe corner to warrant widespread deployment?
Indeed. Each exposed human being must be able to decide. As long-lived (/'hot') waste may be a matter of concern for future generations we have a problem.
Jet liners
There are at least a few major differences with a nuke reactor:
Jetliners rarely kill non-passengers and everyone can chose to avoid them (be a non-passenger)
They kill locally (in space and time) and 'patently' while every bystander, and even anti-nuke and distant people, in space and time, may be more than slightly annoyed by a nuclear reactor, and may be unable to know that they are at risk (exposed to ionizing radiation). Even without any disaster, because part of the waste is highly dangerous!
Jetliners are very difficult to replace in their mission. Civilian nuke, used for gridpower generation, is not.
As with cars
Same answers, adaptation (as for non-passengers victims, who now can only dismiss the risk by leaving cities) left as an exercise for the reader:-)
people regard the risk/benefit ratio to be worth the deaths
That's the whole point.
the risks/rewards lie on a continuum and that despite it being distasteful to admit some number of deaths are acceptable
Indeed. BTW a jetliner killed my brother in 1998 (flight SR-111, he was a passenger), I had to give a thought about those matters.
If you compare the number of people likely to be killed by reactor malfunctions to the number of people saved by some consequence of the reactors existing does it compare favourably?
Answering is difficult, for example (again!) because we have to take waste into account. Moreover one cannot neglect lies published by some people advocating it, which is not precisely a good factor in my book.
Sorry. Wish I had the wisdom to avoid writing while in a hurry.
The original poster wrote: "Chernobyl, but that one was a combination of bad reactor design even for its age, human error, but most importantly, deliberate shutdown of safety mechanisms while running in experimental mode".
My intent was to say that not a single one of those risks are now solved. "Bad reactor design" is not out of question (recent bugs were discovered in modern designs, and with time others may appear, maybe by hitting hard), human error is always a factor (Three Mile Island...), deliberate (or miscalculated risk-taking) did not suddenly became impossible.
in a modern nuclear plant (pebble-bed designs), when it "goes down" all it does is stop generating power, nothing more
The Soviets masters also used to tout their reactors as "sure to the point of enabling us to build them on the Red Square". When Cherno blasted stuff away they were nowhere to be found, and poor suckers (civilians and liquidators) enjoyed the ride.
Even the modern EPR was also touted as absolutely sure, then experts mandated by the first customer (the Finns) discovered that the classic "sump clogging" problem may cause a major accident, as explained in "Nucleonics Week" (Volume 45, Number 11 - March 11, 2004). It was at least partially fixed, but for one discovered bug how many remain hidden?
As for your pebble thingie don't neglect criticism (page 41). Published by anti-nukers, yep, but please read the authors' pedigrees (page 4).
For informed people anyone claiming that a complex technical thingie (for example a nuclear powerplant or a piece of software) is "fully debugged and sure" is either a naive enthusiast or a liar.
Chernobyl, but that one was a combination of bad reactor design even for its age, human error, but most importantly, deliberate shutdown of safety mechanisms while running in experimental mode
All thoses causes were then possible, most (if not all) for sure are and probably will.
A civilian nuclear reactor produces gridpower. "There are currently 104 commercial nuclear reactors ((...)) the share of the Nationâ(TM)s total electricity supply provided by nuclear power generation has averaged about 20%". Source:EIA.
Carbon Dioxide Emissions were (2007): 2,433 million metric tons emitted to produce gridpower, and 3,557 for other uses, mainly transportation (no car/plane runs on nuclear fuel!). Source: EIA
In other words building 400 new nuclear reactors, a major ordeal, only reduces carbon dioxide emissions by 40% and there is no further potential gain without an even much more major retrofit: only using gridpower-fed transportation means. Is it an "effective" approach?
The Bose Institute ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose_Institute ) exhibited approximatively 90 years ago that plants do "feel" pain.
A. Huxley visited the lab and wrote about this in his "Jesting Pilate" book (1926), in very similar terms (more or less "upon discovering those studies, vegans will be tempted to only eat minerals")
Nothing new under the Sun...
My point was that we better avoid taking anything, even (maybe 'especially') published by the establishment, for granted. I was shocked to read you using disinformation as facts (you wrote, for example, ''Yes "only" 800 deaths due to radiation after the blast is a tragedy...'', ''this article is simply stating that these tragedies are significantly less....'') while a more adequate form, in line with most criticism read here, is "this article uses bullshit as facts in order to draw conclusions upon them, therefore the GIGO (Garbarge In, Garbage Out) rule applies".
> The 4,000 deaths of cleanup workers at Chernobyl is completely unexcusable.
This estimation was touted by the IAEA, which runs in order to disseminate nuclear powerplants, and by the OMS (censored by the IAEA for all nuclear-related matters).
Moreover the IAEA announced "4,000 deaths, grand total, definitive and scientific (United Nations) estimation" in September 2005 (it wasn't definitive, nor sci, nor UN) before discreetling backing up in April 2006 ("9000, stated only for a subset of the Soviet population and for solid cancers"). Here is an overview and an article.
> 800 deaths are objectively fewer than the 105,000 reported in Wikipedia.
> 4,000 deaths are objectively fewer than "the six-figure death counts that opponents of nuclear power once cited".
The most famous report published by the opponents (titled TORCH) was published AFTER IAEA's report.
The IAEA estimation ("4000...") is mainly based upon scientific material from E. Cardis (who served as the scientific secretary for the study which leaded to the report), and they properly credited her. Know what? As soon as the ''4000 deaths'' thesis was published she declared that 30,000 to 60,000 cancer deaths is "the right order of magnitude". See New Scientists and Nature. Her most recent study leads to "By 2065, models predict that about 16,000 (95% UI 3,400 72,000) cases of thyroid cancer and 25,000 (95% UI 11,000 59,000) cases of other cancers may be expected due to radiation from the accident and that about 16,000 deaths (95% UI 6,700 - 38,000) from these cancers may occur).". Abstract: no less than 6,700, approx 16,000, maybe up to 38,000... remember that the main "opponents" report (TORCH) authors estimated that 30,000 to 60,000 may die. Therefore the 'total mortality' estimation published by the very expert committed by the IAEA are more on the same ballpark of published by scientific "opponents" than IAEA's.
The IAEA's "4,000 total" is ridiculous. Quoting it, as you did, is at best naive.
> don't see people debating the accuracy of the numbers they use
> Grow up
Yeah. Sure. Good advice, chief. Thanx! Here is my hint: avoid propagating lies. The ongoing propaganda campaign "eat nuke! good for health! yummy!" is already well funded, they don't need any help.
> Actually, they still have problems with boats sinking - generally I hear about 2-3 ferries sinking a year. Usually it's determined that needed maintenance wasn't being done combined with incompetent crew for 2nd/3rd world countries.
Security made progress, that's granted, but nothing is absolutely sure.
There are numerous major accidents. Rarely a huge toll (here is an example: ship new to service, not a 2nd/34rd world country, 20 people KIA out of 89), because there are no more huge cruise ships nor massive advertising before their their maiden trip, therefore most go barely noticed. If, on the other hand, nuclear plants go more and more numerous and bigger (powerful) the global risk (and local cost) of an accident will rise.
>> Building a clean coal plant costs now approx the same as a nuclear one
> Are you just agreeing with what I said?
Yes, but please don't neglect that "'clean coal' approach is pretty new and disruptive, therefore there are margins for savings."
> 'Clean Coal'
> still has the increased fuel costs of coal
There is plenty of coal in the US (no strategic problem), its cost is much more stable (uranium price is now at least 5x times 2001's) and it produces no very dangerous waste.
> and that's before you consider CO2 sequestriation
As already written: nope, in the proposed case study (see IGCC)
> Oh, and your link states $1,500-$2,000/watt, not a 'very minimum 2000+ per kW.'
Nope. The Platts document states that:
-=-=-=-=
Generation II" nuclear power unit -- of the type China has built ((...)) $1,500 to $2,000 per installed kilowatt. The figures are even higher for Generation III plants
=-=-=-=-
Will somebody try to build a brand new generation 2 plant (less secure) in the US? Therefore it will be a G3, which costs are "Even higher" than $2000/kW, which is what I wrote (isn't "very minimum 2k" equivalent to "even higher than 2k"?)
> when it comes to retrofitting it frequently isn't, because it costs so much more
True on the short term, but when we have to switch a country retrofitting as soon and much as possible often makes sense because it also switches most of the existing chains (supply, skills...). Be keeping old stuff around one just makes it harder for all to switch. You are right in that most will not replace nearly new stuff, but incentives have to somewhat speed up the reform of at least middle-aged obsolete energy guzzlers.
> Homes can last centuries.
That's less and less true, helping insulating.
> IGCC still loses a couple efficiency points when you tack on sequestriation
True but marginal and could be coped in the coming years.
> As for the waste - like I keep saying, it's ~95% fuel still. The remaining 5% will reach ambient in a couple hundred years
All I know is that the DOE tries hard to ensure that the repository (Yucca) will be sure for 1 million years, by an EPA requirement.
> Decommisioning is paid for in the USA by a fund
In the UK the first major decommission campaign caused a shock: estimated costs were way, way underestimated. Let's bet that, at this point of time, taxpayer money will (as usual) cover deficient private companies.
> in seeking higher efficiencies they ended up sacrificing durability. Is saving a kw/h a week worth cutting 10-25% of a system's useful lifespan? Heck, for a while they were making homes so well sealed that many became chemical disasters from buildup of home cleaners/chemicals*.
> They said the Titanic could never sink. It did. What I'm talking about is that her sister ships, with additional modifications
IMHO this comparison is not reason: there were no more major civil disaster because ocean liners became obsolete. There were very few ships similar to the Titanic (and there is now none), therefore there was no more accidents. In the same vein: no more nuclear power, no more risks.
> Modern cars are, on average, the safest today
I agree but they are not absolutely safe, nor are nuclear plants. Moreover no one can "prove" that any given risk assessment is accurate.
>> Let's add clean coal
> The problem I have with this is that 'clean coal' plants are shaping up to be as expensive as nuclear plants
Building a clean coal plant costs now approx the same as a nuclear one. Taylorville (630 MW), for example (our case study), will cost 2 billion, which will be a very good achievement because this "clean coal" approach is pretty new and disruptive, therefore there are margins for savings. Remember that a nuclear is at the very minimum 2000+ per kW.
> with higher operating expenses
Why?
> that go even higher if you want CO2 sequestration.
Better: no very dangerous waste nor nightmare at decommission time.
> Conservation's fine and dandy (I've retroffited my house with additional insulation), but after a certain point it costs more than it's worth
I agree (and it is true for every form of optimization), but on the average we are very far from this point!
> For example, some modern high efficiency AC systems are turning out to not last as long
There is no perfect-at-birth thingie (early defects are especially common on new electronic systems, but also on mechanical and electric ones). Let's have them enhanced. The very first nuclear plant was very dangerous, clunky and did not produce much power:-)
> Though I can't say whether that's because of metallurgical parts having to be built that light, or they compromised on manufacturing expense(IE not a good enough alloy), or just plain 'made in china'.
It may also be explained by a lack of competition(?)
Again: the TCO is the only good measure. 10 times more expensive lasting 50 times more is a good deal. I'm not the one ignoring arguments, there.
> Biomass makes plenty of sense in some areas - Heck, my grandmother uses it to heat her house. Still, there's very little sense in trying to use it for electricity
One many usages it replaces gridpowered or oil-burning stuff.
> we're better off rendering it to ethanol or biodiesel
It may be true on a large scale.
> I've never liked Sen. Kennedy, but that was one of my head shakers. The current hypocrisy of many of the 'green' politicians irk me tremendously
I agree, but judging anything by the use most politicians have of it is often condemning it
>> That's one of the most weird assertion touted by the nuclear industry. It is not solid and leads to implicit very disputed "conclusions". Briefly: radionuclides emitted by coal plants are not very active nor concentrated.
> They're the same particles
Indeed. This was not my main argument
> studies of high-background radiation areas vs low-background radiation areas have found no increased levels of cancer.
Some found a relationship, that's why the linear model is the official one. There is also this radiation homeostasis thing. All this is pretty complicated, moreover we will only be able to count the harmed when the last nuclear waste will be cold. Putting abruptly "coal-plants emissions are more dangerous than nuclear ones" is absolutely ridiculous.
> Coal electricity generation is one of the larger producers of CO2 in the USA. Shutting them down, besides eliminating all the real pollution they produce, would drop our CO2 emissions by quite a bit. Cheap power can help to develop affordable alternatives to oil powered vehicles.
I agree, but some messages are at least understood by some as "nuclear power plants will solve the CO2 problem", this is ridiculous
> you could collocate an ethanol plant to help make use of the waste heat.
Co-generation is no specific to nuclear (it is much more rarely used in a nuclear plant because of some risk, induced or at least perceived)
> you'll never be able to convince me that nuclear power isn't safe
Chernobyl. TMI (no one knows for sure why it did not degenerate into a complete meltdown). Yeah, there are people saying that the tech is OK now, just as some said, before the disaster/incident that those Cherno/TMI plants were safe.
> I won't be able to convince you that it can be done safely.
Mostly because I somewhat know about security. In a word: there is no perfect answer nor absolute shield. Also: because the nuclear "camp" is one of the most secretive and propagandist (there is a bunch of plain liars, there).
> the highest target you've mentioned is 40% renewable
In 2025, for a switch which began in 1997. That's 35 years. We now have 150 years of coal use, and 100 of oil use (with approx 70 of hard dependence). Given the ridiculous amount of R&D done on renewable those 30 last years (worldwide), this is an ambitious achievement.
> we'd still need to make up the remaining 60%
Coal produces 52% of US electricity (grid power). Let's add clean coal (it already started, at the federal and local level) and energy conservation, and we are done with the coal problem with no new nuclear plant.
> install wind where it makes sense - but it doesn't make sense in enough locations for it to be more than a minor source of our electricity
Don't forget all the similar sources (solar, biomass, tidal...), then and add them up. In some countries a pair may produce all electricity needed. Some may export energy.
> much like how we've pretty much maximized our potential hydroelectric sources in much of the world.
Nope. Think "small hydro-electric generation facilities" (AFAIK Texas, for example, has a good potential)
> Ah, so we should forge ahead with, according to you, inefficient installations when new technologies will enable higher efficiency at lower costs?
Again: this is not a matter of "efficiency" (physics) but of Total Cost of Ownership. A power source (of any type) producing energy and causing less major nuisance than another, at a reasonable cost (compared to other sources), is adequate.
> I'll agree with the 'less annoyances' - though I'll note that Senator Kennedy has been running a campaign against an offshore wind system because he sails there
... while re-affirming his support of wind energy. Egoism or stupidity...
Even a country not-so-prominent (on the wind energy area) as UK already has sites and serious major projects while the US, with respect to their respective scales, often seem stuck in such farces.
> Another reduction in 'annoyances' would be a reduction in pollution
Yep, that's what I put under the "waste" term, conceding that we may hope that there will be no major nuclear mishap (major leak or nuclear disaster) during the next century. There is a risk, especially upon a wave of nuclear-plant building activities, but no one can seriously evaluate it and I don't need it to show that clean and renewable sources may be preferable.
> nuclear plant - relative to it's power generation it has a much smaller footprint than a wind farm or dam
We don't care if the corresponding land is of no use. Deserts for solar panels, offshore areas... In my opinion we have to avoid abusing wild forms of life and it will add to the global cost, but it seems manageable.
> I'm not looking for 'adequate' solutions - I want the most optimal/best one.
The "best" (efficiency) may be the enemy of the good, especially when it induces new major risks factors.
((offshore farms: corrosion))
> Because that's factored in
> replace sacrificial anodes. This adds up quickly when you're talking about hundreds or thousands of turbines.
Existing turbines are cost effective ("factored in"). Adding new ones will only make offshore turbines more feasible upon this criteria because parts will be cheaper (mass-production, competition...).
> I keep telling you, nuclear power beats wind and solar for cost effectiveness
Maybe right now, without integrating the real cost of nuclear (taxpayers' aid, Texas case, real cost of a massive decommission campaign in the UK...)
> new reactors are safer, cheaper, and more efficient than old ones.
Granted, but most of the major drawbacks stay (as already listed: risk (meltdown, leak, dissemination of weapon-related technology...), no fuel (cost, strategic implications...), each nuclear unit is expensive and difficult to 'duplicate' (compared to nuclear), nuclear maintenance is not easy nor cheap, nobody knows how to cope with waste...)
> Unknown but assumed small risk, I don't generally take movies as being credible*
I used China syndrome as a easy-to-grasp term (not as a reference to the motion picture), but will now use "nuclear meltdow
> They also made various changes to Chernobyl reactors 1-3 to make them safer
Indeed, but most causes presented as major (IMHO they are not major ones, they are only used in order to let the people think that Cherno was much more dangerous than Western models) derives from architectural approaches and are not subject to retrofit
> it reads like a circus of clowns, much like TMI.
Some say that humans are the sole potential direct cause of mishap, but no one came with a foolproof or entirely automatic plant, therefore far-from-perfect-humans may stay in the picture
> Production level US reactors were always safer in design than Chernobyl
The sole hard fact is: there was no major mishap in the US 'till now. But it may be just like in this story of the guy playing Russian roulette: he rolls the cylinder then (trigger-action) 'click', (trigger-action) 'click', (trigger-action) 'click', (trigger-action) 'click'... Then he thinks "hey! so far, so good! No danger, let's resume playing".
> test and research reactors weren't always, but that's because they didn't have a clue
That's an important point: when will we sure that we have a clue, that no major problem may appear? Not now, cause even the waste problem is not solved.
> One of the bigger points is that we pre-entomb the reactors in a huge pressure dome
> we're talking the model T's of nuclear reactors - can we start at least building honda civics?
Where are they?
As far as I know all concerned are instead enhancing the current ones, and it seems not efficient nor easy.
Take, for example, the EPR ("European Pressurized Reactor"), conceived by AREVA and Siemens, who are surely not amateurs on this field and which is an evolution of an existing well-known and used architecture, aiming at gaining security and efficiency. In a word: the plant will probably produce about 20% less hot waste than existing ones (that's probably its best achievement), the efficiency-related gains are low (a few percent) and risk reduction is not certain. This last one (security) is revealing: the beast was touted as very secure then sold to Finland who ran a blue-prints checking and discovered problems, the main one being pretty huge:
Reference: Nucleonics Week, Volume 45, Number 11 - March 11, 2004. The text runs as follows: "Sump clogging will be issue for EPR with Finnish regulator Framatome ANP will soon have to prove to Finnish, and likely French, nuclear safety authorities that its EPR advanced PWR will provide protection against the sump strainer clogging risk that has emerged as one of the most acute problems of today's LWRs, officials in both countries say. TVO, the Finnish utility, has ordered a 1,600-MW EPR from Framatome, a subsidiary of Areva, but it's not known today how Framatome will design the reactor to preclude sump strainer clogging."
Such technobabble implies that a sort of cradle container where the reactor, in theory, falls in case of severe problem, may become full of vapor (due to clogging) to the point of ejecting the whole hot (and heavy) stuff, which is precisely one of the scenarios which *must* be avoided.
Such clogging is a generic problem (whose effects are worsened by EPR's layout) and the only practical answer, for now, is to have the maintenance teams strictly respect the procedures. This is very difficult upon time (people get bored, accustomed to danger...).
For every late-discovered problem, how many are quietly sleeping, disasters waiting to happen?
Moreover the first EPR, even as an "updated" Model T, is currently being built in Finland ("Olkiluoto" site) and the project has major problems, is late and induces costs overruns, showing a lack of command. This recent account shows many of those problems, albeit it mainly uses pro-nuclear arguments.
> I was pointing out the earlier figure for the off-shore site mentioned in the article, based on actual math
I showed that much higher capacity factors are already reached, and that ~90% is planned on at least a farm. Those 'maths' may no apply
>> On an existing site: Since opening in 2000, the turbines at this wind farm have had an average capacity factor of 52% and, according to this report, in 2005 averaged a world record 57.9%..
> Ah, a world record. Of 57.9% So much for your 90% figure.
AFAIK this is a record for this type of setup, not an absolute one nor an asymptote
> how does the cost of installing turbines off shore compare to on shore? I'm pretty sure they'd be more expensive.
It costs more but has less annoyances (sight, sound...) and better capacity factor. Each need has its more adequate solution.
> how does maintenance costs compare when you have turbines exposed to salt air?
For what I know this is not anymore a major problem, thanks to appropriate building material and design. It does not impede the already running farms.
> How many areas are suitable for the installation of off shore wind turbines
> how many of these are within useful ranges of cities and other customers for the electricity
AFAIK those are among the worst problems, but every year some new approach and thingie appears in order to further alleviate them. Moreover we are looking for cost effectiveness rather than absolute performance ('efficiency', as in physics): operational research (aimed at TCO!) will do when it comes to cope with "A given site offers better cap. fact. but higher costs than another..."
> will they have to shut great swaths of these down when a storm passes through?
For what I know a turbine auto-protects (temporarily ceases producing power) itself when the wind is too strong, but this limitation is from time to time raised by new models.
Wind: no risk (China syndrome, leak, dissemination of weapon-related technology...), no fuel (cost, strategic implications...), each unit is cheap and easy to 'duplicate' (compared to nuclear), maintenance is "a breeze" (compared to nuclear), no waste...
All this for about 6% of the cost, right now? This is a no brainer, even with risk-provisions.
Moreover the fast pace of recent wind-techno enhancements show that there is room for R&D: let's invest into wind R&D, during the next 10 years, the amount of money poured into civil nuclear during it peak R&D phase...
> you still need backup power
Nope. The grid (multiple sites: solar panels in deserts, many windfarms...) will cope, as it already does with existing power plants.
> even if the reactor vessel [i]had[/i] failed, there as still a secondary containment structure around the reactor to contain the radiation.
Is it perfectly half-spherical and infinitely solid, in order to avoid a China syndrome?
> That alone would have saved Chernobyl as well, if it'd had one.
The convenient disaster's explanation summed up by "Cherno was ill-designed to the point of being very dangerous" is AFAIK moot. I'm not able to detail but here is an account AFAIK adequate, please let me know if there is a flaw.
RBMK (Cherno's reactor type) is based on a "modular containment" principle. The heart is built by pressure tubes (Cherno: 1700 of them), nearly independent to each other, in order to cope with most incidents types (steam or cooler leak/loss...) at the tube (or tiny group of tubes) level, while one can manage it, even at the price of shutting the reactor down.
The PWR architecture (used in many plants) is not as efficient: a leak in the primary circuit releases a huge amount of steam in the containment structure (you don't want that as it can blow at least part of it)
RBMK are instable at low-level of produced power, but above a given level (Cherno: 800 thermal MW) the temperature coefficient of reactivity surpasses the void coefficient of reactivity, therefore one has only to avoid operating the beast below this level. Various dispositions and safeties ensure that, during a shutdown, a continuous loss of power is maintained, and there is no danger. Chernobyl's operators disabled safeties (this is a real cause of the disaster) in order to restart the reactor while it produced approx 30 MW (thermal), leading to the known mishaps (Xenon-135 poisoning, control rods manually raised (ouch, huge mistake!), less power to the primary circuit pumps, less water pressure, steam, void doping the nuclear reactions (3200 thermal MW in a few seconds), steam explosion (nuclear) distributing the fuel, water+zirconium -> hydrogen plus another steam explosion which destroyed the building... all bets off)
AFAIK a first version of such an account was published (IAEA...) just after the disaster, but promptly hidden. When truth is not convenient lies do.
> Chernobyl reactors were still producing power until the last one was shut down in 2000.
Yep: their design was not particularly dangerous.
Providing insurance costs, for example and to begin with the insurer have to maintain an allocation (reserve). To think otherwise is to deny the vast amounts of money involved in the insurance biz.
> Every claim against the nuclear energy industry, ever, has been paid out of the funds that are paid into by the industry.
Claims are only part of the big picture, and there are numerous cases of spent taxpayer's money. Secrecy hides many tricks, but not all.
The trick is simple: underestimating costs, then letting taxpayer's money pay the difference and compensations to the industry. If a real cost appears the company involved is no more around to pay.
Here is an application: the only potential solution for nuclear waste is now the "Yucca Mountain Repository". It is studied since nearly 30 years, scheduled since 20 and can only "solve" the problem (there is no consensus about this), at the current rate of waste production up to 2014. Worse: after many postponings it will not open before 2017 and most people concerned simply don't want this to happen and even citizen not affected by the "Not In My Backyard" syndrom don't want anyone to coerce them.
The DOE has to cope with the waste by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, which says "the DOE will cope with waste, thanks to money paid by the nuclear industry" (leading to the Yucca Mountain project).
We are talking about big bucks, there: a GAO report (established for the Congress), stated in 2001 (page 2) that "Estimates of the potential damages vary widely, from DOE's estimate of about $2 billion to the nuclear industry's estimate of $50 billion.". The footnote 11 (page 19) is also interesting: then (2001) "concluded that DOE's schedule for licensing, constructing, and opening the repository by 2010 was optimistic by about 2 years and that DOE's estimate of the total cost of the program over its 100-plus-year lifetime--$58 billion (2000 dollars)--was understated by about $3 billion.". Remember: the opening date is now 2017. This imply new costs/risks (project failure)/claims/temporary storage/... Don't worry: taxpayer's money will, as usual, pay!
And here is a case: during "Maine Yankee" nuclear power plant decommission, for example, there was a lawsuit: Maine Yankee owners tried to get the DOE (dept. of Energy) pay (isn't this a "claim"?) for part of fuel removing (by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act), and won (approx 75M bucks). Isn't DOE's money taxpayer money? Better: two companies exploiting the plant were also awarded, for a grand total of 152 million. Granted, those companies payed during years for temporary storage because DOE failed to tackle the task (which has an explanation: failure to receive approvals for Yucca, which postponed it and added to the costs), but AFAIK the balance between their temporary storage costs and those earnings is positive: Maine Yankee wins taxpayer's money because the DOE promised to take care of the waste, and failed. Here is the best part: the DOE will very probably, beyond the awards, be coerced into removing the fuel. Yep, the taxpayer (again) helps some easy accounting write-offs. Anything "costs less" when taxpayer money discreetly pays!
Moreover this decommissioning seems to be done by rubblization which "is in fact a serious abrogation of law and environmental policy as currently evidenced by Maine and Connecticut legislation mandating that there will be no "low-level" radioactive waste
Let's not forget that no one knows for sure why the Three Miles Island plant reactor vessel contained the danger, in other terms why it did not degenerate into a major disaster.
Slashdot Mirror
"I like offending people because I think people who get offended should be offended." is (mis?)attributed to Linus Torvalds.
The question is do modern reactors fall far enough into the safe corner to warrant widespread deployment?
Indeed. Each exposed human being must be able to decide. As long-lived (/'hot') waste may be a matter of concern for future generations we have a problem.
Jet liners
There are at least a few major differences with a nuke reactor:
As with cars
Same answers, adaptation (as for non-passengers victims, who now can only dismiss the risk by leaving cities) left as an exercise for the reader :-)
people regard the risk/benefit ratio to be worth the deaths
That's the whole point.
the risks/rewards lie on a continuum and that despite it being distasteful to admit some number of deaths are acceptable
Indeed. BTW a jetliner killed my brother in 1998 (flight SR-111, he was a passenger), I had to give a thought about those matters.
If you compare the number of people likely to be killed by reactor malfunctions to the number of people saved by some consequence of the reactors existing does it compare favourably?
Answering is difficult, for example (again!) because we have to take waste into account. Moreover one cannot neglect lies published by some people advocating it, which is not precisely a good factor in my book.
I just can't parse that sentence
Sorry. Wish I had the wisdom to avoid writing while in a hurry.
The original poster wrote: "Chernobyl, but that one was a combination of bad reactor design even for its age, human error, but most importantly, deliberate shutdown of safety mechanisms while running in experimental mode".
My intent was to say that not a single one of those risks are now solved. "Bad reactor design" is not out of question (recent bugs were discovered in modern designs, and with time others may appear, maybe by hitting hard), human error is always a factor (Three Mile Island...), deliberate (or miscalculated risk-taking) did not suddenly became impossible.
in a modern nuclear plant (pebble-bed designs), when it "goes down" all it does is stop generating power, nothing more
The Soviets masters also used to tout their reactors as "sure to the point of enabling us to build them on the Red Square". When Cherno blasted stuff away they were nowhere to be found, and poor suckers (civilians and liquidators) enjoyed the ride.
Even the modern EPR was also touted as absolutely sure, then experts mandated by the first customer (the Finns) discovered that the classic "sump clogging" problem may cause a major accident, as explained in "Nucleonics Week" (Volume 45, Number 11 - March 11, 2004). It was at least partially fixed, but for one discovered bug how many remain hidden?
As for your pebble thingie don't neglect criticism (page 41). Published by anti-nukers, yep, but please read the authors' pedigrees (page 4).
For informed people anyone claiming that a complex technical thingie (for example a nuclear powerplant or a piece of software) is "fully debugged and sure" is either a naive enthusiast or a liar.
Three Mile Island? Fully contained, worked as designed.
No one knows for sure why the meltdown was avoided. Moreover the very probable causes (regulatory failure and industry cost-cutting) are not forever gone.
Chernobyl, but that one was a combination of bad reactor design even for its age, human error, but most importantly, deliberate shutdown of safety mechanisms while running in experimental mode
All thoses causes were then possible, most (if not all) for sure are and probably will.
Carbon Dioxide Emissions were (2007): 2,433 million metric tons emitted to produce gridpower, and 3,557 for other uses, mainly transportation (no car/plane runs on nuclear fuel!). Source: EIA
In other words building 400 new nuclear reactors, a major ordeal, only reduces carbon dioxide emissions by 40% and there is no further potential gain without an even much more major retrofit: only using gridpower-fed transportation means. Is it an "effective" approach?
Nuclear: 8.5 percent of the total primary energy used. Renewable (7.3%) are not ridiculous, especially given their long history of lack of founding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cordyceps_sinensis , albeit multicellular, is also somewhat astonishing
The Bose Institute ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose_Institute ) exhibited approximatively 90 years ago that plants do "feel" pain. A. Huxley visited the lab and wrote about this in his "Jesting Pilate" book (1926), in very similar terms (more or less "upon discovering those studies, vegans will be tempted to only eat minerals") Nothing new under the Sun...
Sourcing if of paramount importance. Some UN agencies, for example, spread pure BS
"Yep, I go for three of them!"
Overall we do agree.
Yeah. Sure. "The people is dumb".
Let's see...
> The 4,000 deaths of cleanup workers at Chernobyl is completely unexcusable.
This estimation was touted by the IAEA, which runs in order to disseminate nuclear powerplants, and by the OMS (censored by the IAEA for all nuclear-related matters).
Moreover the IAEA announced "4,000 deaths, grand total, definitive and scientific (United Nations) estimation" in September 2005 (it wasn't definitive, nor sci, nor UN) before discreetling backing up in April 2006 ("9000, stated only for a subset of the Soviet population and for solid cancers"). Here is an overview and an article.
> 800 deaths are objectively fewer than the 105,000 reported in Wikipedia.
On WP (en and fr) there are too many pro-nuke agit-propers, eager to relay disinformation and censor facts.
> 4,000 deaths are objectively fewer than "the six-figure death counts that opponents of nuclear power once cited".
The most famous report published by the opponents (titled TORCH) was published AFTER IAEA's report.
The IAEA estimation ("4000 ...") is mainly based upon scientific material from E. Cardis (who served as the scientific secretary for the study which leaded to the report), and they properly credited her. Know what? As soon as the ''4000 deaths'' thesis was published she declared that 30,000 to 60,000 cancer deaths is "the right order of magnitude". See New Scientists and Nature. Her most recent study leads to "By 2065, models predict that about 16,000 (95% UI 3,400 72,000) cases of thyroid cancer and 25,000 (95% UI 11,000 59,000) cases of other cancers may be expected due to radiation from the accident and that about 16,000 deaths (95% UI 6,700 - 38,000) from these cancers may occur).". Abstract: no less than 6,700, approx 16,000, maybe up to 38,000 ... remember that the main "opponents" report (TORCH) authors estimated that 30,000 to 60,000 may die. Therefore the 'total mortality' estimation published by the very expert committed by the IAEA are more on the same ballpark of published by scientific "opponents" than IAEA's.
The IAEA's "4,000 total" is ridiculous. Quoting it, as you did, is at best naive.
> don't see people debating the accuracy of the numbers they use
> Grow up
Yeah. Sure. Good advice, chief. Thanx! Here is my hint: avoid propagating lies. The ongoing propaganda campaign "eat nuke! good for health! yummy!" is already well funded, they don't need any help.
Security made progress, that's granted, but nothing is absolutely sure.
There are numerous major accidents. Rarely a huge toll (here is an example: ship new to service, not a 2nd/34rd world country, 20 people KIA out of 89), because there are no more huge cruise ships nor massive advertising before their their maiden trip, therefore most go barely noticed. If, on the other hand, nuclear plants go more and more numerous and bigger (powerful) the global risk (and local cost) of an accident will rise.
>> Building a clean coal plant costs now approx the same as a nuclear one
> Are you just agreeing with what I said?
Yes, but please don't neglect that "'clean coal' approach is pretty new and disruptive, therefore there are margins for savings."
> 'Clean Coal'
> still has the increased fuel costs of coal
There is plenty of coal in the US (no strategic problem), its cost is much more stable (uranium price is now at least 5x times 2001's) and it produces no very dangerous waste.
> and that's before you consider CO2 sequestriation
As already written: nope, in the proposed case study (see IGCC)
> Oh, and your link states $1,500-$2,000/watt, not a 'very minimum 2000+ per kW.'
Nope. The Platts document states that:
-=-=-=-=
Generation II" nuclear power unit -- of the type China has built ((...)) $1,500 to $2,000 per installed kilowatt. The figures are even higher for Generation III plants
=-=-=-=-
Will somebody try to build a brand new generation 2 plant (less secure) in the US? Therefore it will be a G3, which costs are "Even higher" than $2000/kW, which is what I wrote (isn't "very minimum 2k" equivalent to "even higher than 2k"?)
> when it comes to retrofitting it frequently isn't, because it costs so much more
True on the short term, but when we have to switch a country retrofitting as soon and much as possible often makes sense because it also switches most of the existing chains (supply, skills...). Be keeping old stuff around one just makes it harder for all to switch. You are right in that most will not replace nearly new stuff, but incentives have to somewhat speed up the reform of at least middle-aged obsolete energy guzzlers.
> Homes can last centuries.
That's less and less true, helping insulating.
> IGCC still loses a couple efficiency points when you tack on sequestriation
True but marginal and could be coped in the coming years.
> As for the waste - like I keep saying, it's ~95% fuel still. The remaining 5% will reach ambient in a couple hundred years
All I know is that the DOE tries hard to ensure that the repository (Yucca) will be sure for 1 million years, by an EPA requirement.
> Decommisioning is paid for in the USA by a fund
In the UK the first major decommission campaign caused a shock: estimated costs were way, way underestimated. Let's bet that, at this point of time, taxpayer money will (as usual) cover deficient private companies.
> in seeking higher efficiencies they ended up sacrificing durability. Is saving a kw/h a week worth cutting 10-25% of a system's useful lifespan? Heck, for a while they were making homes so well sealed that many became chemical disasters from buildup of home cleaners/chemicals*.
I f
IMHO this comparison is not reason: there were no more major civil disaster because ocean liners became obsolete. There were very few ships similar to the Titanic (and there is now none), therefore there was no more accidents. In the same vein: no more nuclear power, no more risks.
> Modern cars are, on average, the safest today
I agree but they are not absolutely safe, nor are nuclear plants. Moreover no one can "prove" that any given risk assessment is accurate.
>> Let's add clean coal
> The problem I have with this is that 'clean coal' plants are shaping up to be as expensive as nuclear plants
Building a clean coal plant costs now approx the same as a nuclear one. Taylorville (630 MW), for example (our case study), will cost 2 billion, which will be a very good achievement because this "clean coal" approach is pretty new and disruptive, therefore there are margins for savings. Remember that a nuclear is at the very minimum 2000+ per kW.
> with higher operating expenses
Why?
> that go even higher if you want CO2 sequestration.
In our case study: nope, thanks to IGCC
Better: no very dangerous waste nor nightmare at decommission time.
> Conservation's fine and dandy (I've retroffited my house with additional insulation), but after a certain point it costs more than it's worth
I agree (and it is true for every form of optimization), but on the average we are very far from this point!
> For example, some modern high efficiency AC systems are turning out to not last as long
There is no perfect-at-birth thingie (early defects are especially common on new electronic systems, but also on mechanical and electric ones). Let's have them enhanced. The very first nuclear plant was very dangerous, clunky and did not produce much power :-)
> Though I can't say whether that's because of metallurgical parts having to be built that light, or they compromised on manufacturing expense(IE not a good enough alloy), or just plain 'made in china'.
It may also be explained by a lack of competition(?)
Are low-cost low-tech, not adequate for baseload.
> photovoltiacs are 4-10 times as expensive.
Again: the TCO is the only good measure. 10 times more expensive lasting 50 times more is a good deal. I'm not the one ignoring arguments, there.
> Biomass makes plenty of sense in some areas - Heck, my grandmother uses it to heat her house. Still, there's very little sense in trying to use it for electricity
One many usages it replaces gridpowered or oil-burning stuff.
> we're better off rendering it to ethanol or biodiesel
It may be true on a large scale.
> I've never liked Sen. Kennedy, but that was one of my head shakers. The current hypocrisy of many of the 'green' politicians irk me tremendously
I agree, but judging anything by the use most politicians have of it is often condemning it
>> That's one of the most weird assertion touted by the nuclear industry. It is not solid and leads to implicit very disputed "conclusions". Briefly: radionuclides emitted by coal plants are not very active nor concentrated.
> They're the same particles
Indeed. This was not my main argument
> studies of high-background radiation areas vs low-background radiation areas have found no increased levels of cancer.
Some found a relationship, that's why the linear model is the official one. There is also this radiation homeostasis thing. All this is pretty complicated, moreover we will only be able to count the harmed when the last nuclear waste will be cold. Putting abruptly "coal-plants emissions are more dangerous than nuclear ones" is absolutely ridiculous.
> Coal electricity generation is one of the larger producers of CO2 in the USA. Shutting them down, besides eliminating all the real pollution they produce, would drop our CO2 emissions by quite a bit. Cheap power can help to develop affordable alternatives to oil powered vehicles.
I agree, but some messages are at least understood by some as "nuclear power plants will solve the CO2 problem", this is ridiculous
> you could collocate an ethanol plant to help make use of the waste heat.
Co-generation is no specific to nuclear (it is much more rarely used in a nuclear plant because of some risk, induced or at least perceived)
> you'll never be able to convince me that nuclear power isn't safe
Chernobyl. TMI (no one knows for sure why it did not degenerate into a complete meltdown). Yeah, there are people saying that the tech is OK now, just as some said, before the disaster/incident that those Cherno/TMI plants were safe.
> I won't be able to convince you that it can be done safely.
Mostly because I somewhat know about security. In a word: there is no perfect answer nor absolute shield. Also: because the nuclear "camp" is one of the most secretive and propagandist (there is a bunch of plain liars, there).
> the highest target you've mentioned is 40% renewable In 2025, for a switch which began in 1997. That's 35 years. We now have 150 years of coal use, and 100 of oil use (with approx 70 of hard dependence). Given the ridiculous amount of R&D done on renewable those 30 last years (worldwide), this is an ambitious achievement.
> we'd still need to make up the remaining 60%
Coal produces 52% of US electricity (grid power). Let's add clean coal (it already started, at the federal and local level) and energy conservation, and we are done with the coal problem with no new nuclear plant.
Don't forget all the similar sources (solar, biomass, tidal...), then and add them up. In some countries a pair may produce all electricity needed. Some may export energy.
> much like how we've pretty much maximized our potential hydroelectric sources in much of the world.
Nope. Think "small hydro-electric generation facilities" (AFAIK Texas, for example, has a good potential)
> Ah, so we should forge ahead with, according to you, inefficient installations when new technologies will enable higher efficiency at lower costs?
Again: this is not a matter of "efficiency" (physics) but of Total Cost of Ownership. A power source (of any type) producing energy and causing less major nuisance than another, at a reasonable cost (compared to other sources), is adequate.
> I'll agree with the 'less annoyances' - though I'll note that Senator Kennedy has been running a campaign against an offshore wind system because he sails there
Even a country not-so-prominent (on the wind energy area) as UK already has sites and serious major projects while the US, with respect to their respective scales, often seem stuck in such farces.
> Another reduction in 'annoyances' would be a reduction in pollution
Yep, that's what I put under the "waste" term, conceding that we may hope that there will be no major nuclear mishap (major leak or nuclear disaster) during the next century. There is a risk, especially upon a wave of nuclear-plant building activities, but no one can seriously evaluate it and I don't need it to show that clean and renewable sources may be preferable.
> nuclear plant - relative to it's power generation it has a much smaller footprint than a wind farm or dam
We don't care if the corresponding land is of no use. Deserts for solar panels, offshore areas... In my opinion we have to avoid abusing wild forms of life and it will add to the global cost, but it seems manageable.
> I'm not looking for 'adequate' solutions - I want the most optimal/best one.
The "best" (efficiency) may be the enemy of the good, especially when it induces new major risks factors.
((offshore farms: corrosion))
> Because that's factored in
> replace sacrificial anodes. This adds up quickly when you're talking about hundreds or thousands of turbines.
Existing turbines are cost effective ("factored in"). Adding new ones will only make offshore turbines more feasible upon this criteria because parts will be cheaper (mass-production, competition...).
> I keep telling you, nuclear power beats wind and solar for cost effectiveness
Maybe right now, without integrating the real cost of nuclear (taxpayers' aid, Texas case, real cost of a massive decommission campaign in the UK...)
> new reactors are safer, cheaper, and more efficient than old ones.
Granted, but most of the major drawbacks stay (as already listed: risk (meltdown, leak, dissemination of weapon-related technology...), no fuel (cost, strategic implications...), each nuclear unit is expensive and difficult to 'duplicate' (compared to nuclear), nuclear maintenance is not easy nor cheap, nobody knows how to cope with waste...)
> Unknown but assumed small risk, I don't generally take movies as being credible*
I used China syndrome as a easy-to-grasp term (not as a reference to the motion picture), but will now use "nuclear meltdow
Indeed, but most causes presented as major (IMHO they are not major ones, they are only used in order to let the people think that Cherno was much more dangerous than Western models) derives from architectural approaches and are not subject to retrofit
> it reads like a circus of clowns, much like TMI.
Some say that humans are the sole potential direct cause of mishap, but no one came with a foolproof or entirely automatic plant, therefore far-from-perfect-humans may stay in the picture
> Production level US reactors were always safer in design than Chernobyl
The sole hard fact is: there was no major mishap in the US 'till now. But it may be just like in this story of the guy playing Russian roulette: he rolls the cylinder then (trigger-action) 'click', (trigger-action) 'click', (trigger-action) 'click', (trigger-action) 'click'... Then he thinks "hey! so far, so good! No danger, let's resume playing".
> test and research reactors weren't always, but that's because they didn't have a clue
That's an important point: when will we sure that we have a clue, that no major problem may appear? Not now, cause even the waste problem is not solved.
> One of the bigger points is that we pre-entomb the reactors in a huge pressure dome
> we're talking the model T's of nuclear reactors - can we start at least building honda civics?
Where are they?
As far as I know all concerned are instead enhancing the current ones, and it seems not efficient nor easy.
Take, for example, the EPR ("European Pressurized Reactor"), conceived by AREVA and Siemens, who are surely not amateurs on this field and which is an evolution of an existing well-known and used architecture, aiming at gaining security and efficiency. In a word: the plant will probably produce about 20% less hot waste than existing ones (that's probably its best achievement), the efficiency-related gains are low (a few percent) and risk reduction is not certain. This last one (security) is revealing: the beast was touted as very secure then sold to Finland who ran a blue-prints checking and discovered problems, the main one being pretty huge:
Reference: Nucleonics Week, Volume 45, Number 11 - March 11, 2004. The text runs as follows: "Sump clogging will be issue for EPR with Finnish regulator Framatome ANP will soon have to prove to Finnish, and likely French, nuclear safety authorities that its EPR advanced PWR will provide protection against the sump strainer clogging risk that has emerged as one of the most acute problems of today's LWRs, officials in both countries say. TVO, the Finnish utility, has ordered a 1,600-MW EPR from Framatome, a subsidiary of Areva, but it's not known today how Framatome will design the reactor to preclude sump strainer clogging."
Such technobabble implies that a sort of cradle container where the reactor, in theory, falls in case of severe problem, may become full of vapor (due to clogging) to the point of ejecting the whole hot (and heavy) stuff, which is precisely one of the scenarios which *must* be avoided.
Such clogging is a generic problem (whose effects are worsened by EPR's layout) and the only practical answer, for now, is to have the maintenance teams strictly respect the procedures. This is very difficult upon time (people get bored, accustomed to danger...).
For every late-discovered problem, how many are quietly sleeping, disasters waiting to happen?
Moreover the first EPR, even as an "updated" Model T, is currently being built in Finland ("Olkiluoto" site) and the project has major problems, is late and induces costs overruns, showing a lack of command. This recent account shows many of those problems, albeit it mainly uses pro-nuclear arguments.
It was, in my opinion. I'm not anon here
> I was pointing out the earlier figure for the off-shore site mentioned in the article, based on actual math
I showed that much higher capacity factors are already reached, and that ~90% is planned on at least a farm. Those 'maths' may no apply
>> On an existing site: Since opening in 2000, the turbines at this wind farm have had an average capacity factor of 52% and, according to this report, in 2005 averaged a world record 57.9%..
> Ah, a world record. Of 57.9% So much for your 90% figure.
AFAIK this is a record for this type of setup, not an absolute one nor an asymptote
> how does the cost of installing turbines off shore compare to on shore? I'm pretty sure they'd be more expensive.
It costs more but has less annoyances (sight, sound...) and better capacity factor. Each need has its more adequate solution.
> how does maintenance costs compare when you have turbines exposed to salt air?
For what I know this is not anymore a major problem, thanks to appropriate building material and design. It does not impede the already running farms.
> How many areas are suitable for the installation of off shore wind turbines
> how many of these are within useful ranges of cities and other customers for the electricity
AFAIK those are among the worst problems, but every year some new approach and thingie appears in order to further alleviate them. Moreover we are looking for cost effectiveness rather than absolute performance ('efficiency', as in physics): operational research (aimed at TCO!) will do when it comes to cope with "A given site offers better cap. fact. but higher costs than another..."
> will they have to shut great swaths of these down when a storm passes through?
For what I know a turbine auto-protects (temporarily ceases producing power) itself when the wind is too strong, but this limitation is from time to time raised by new models.
> Offshore Wind, @50% capacity factor, at $1.30/watt. $2.60/watt
> Nuclear, $2.20/watt @90% capacity factor. $2.44/watt
> You still gotta get it cheaper
Wind: no risk (China syndrome, leak, dissemination of weapon-related technology...), no fuel (cost, strategic implications...), each unit is cheap and easy to 'duplicate' (compared to nuclear), maintenance is "a breeze" (compared to nuclear), no waste...
All this for about 6% of the cost, right now? This is a no brainer, even with risk-provisions.
Moreover the fast pace of recent wind-techno enhancements show that there is room for R&D: let's invest into wind R&D, during the next 10 years, the amount of money poured into civil nuclear during it peak R&D phase...
> you still need backup power
Nope. The grid (multiple sites: solar panels in deserts, many windfarms...) will cope, as it already does with existing power plants.
This argument ( Sun, wind, tides and waves cannot be controlled to provide directly either continuous base-load power, or peak-load power when it is needed. In practical terms they are therefore limited to some 10-20% of the capacity of an electricity grid) is moot, as soon demonstrated by Denmark which already obtains about 20% of its electricity thanks to the sole wind power, and plans to reach 40% by 2025 (see also Spain).
Is it perfectly half-spherical and infinitely solid, in order to avoid a China syndrome?
> That alone would have saved Chernobyl as well, if it'd had one.
The convenient disaster's explanation summed up by "Cherno was ill-designed to the point of being very dangerous" is AFAIK moot. I'm not able to detail but here is an account AFAIK adequate, please let me know if there is a flaw.
RBMK (Cherno's reactor type) is based on a "modular containment" principle. The heart is built by pressure tubes (Cherno: 1700 of them), nearly independent to each other, in order to cope with most incidents types (steam or cooler leak/loss...) at the tube (or tiny group of tubes) level, while one can manage it, even at the price of shutting the reactor down.
The PWR architecture (used in many plants) is not as efficient: a leak in the primary circuit releases a huge amount of steam in the containment structure (you don't want that as it can blow at least part of it)
RBMK are instable at low-level of produced power, but above a given level (Cherno: 800 thermal MW) the temperature coefficient of reactivity surpasses the void coefficient of reactivity, therefore one has only to avoid operating the beast below this level. Various dispositions and safeties ensure that, during a shutdown, a continuous loss of power is maintained, and there is no danger. Chernobyl's operators disabled safeties (this is a real cause of the disaster) in order to restart the reactor while it produced approx 30 MW (thermal), leading to the known mishaps (Xenon-135 poisoning, control rods manually raised (ouch, huge mistake!), less power to the primary circuit pumps, less water pressure, steam, void doping the nuclear reactions (3200 thermal MW in a few seconds), steam explosion (nuclear) distributing the fuel, water+zirconium -> hydrogen plus another steam explosion which destroyed the building... all bets off)
AFAIK a first version of such an account was published (IAEA...) just after the disaster, but promptly hidden. When truth is not convenient lies do. > Chernobyl reactors were still producing power until the last one was shut down in 2000. Yep: their design was not particularly dangerous.
An anon comment, referring to E.ON Netz Germany which is mainly (if not only) on shore. Let's forget about it.
> Wiki
Here it is: "Offshore ... Capacity factors (utilisation rates) are considerably higher than for onshore and near-shore locations"
Remember that even nuclear plants did not immediately reach their present impressive capacity factor: it took 40+ years
Offshore windfarms will gain from better site selection and more ambitious approaches enabled by technology enhancements.
On particularly favorable locations and in theory some can run an impressive 96% of the time (8440 hours per year), and at 5 MW full power 38% of the time. On an existing site: Since opening in 2000, the turbines at this wind farm have had an average capacity factor of 52% and, according to this report, in 2005 averaged a world record 57.9%..
Providing insurance costs, for example and to begin with the insurer have to maintain an allocation (reserve). To think otherwise is to deny the vast amounts of money involved in the insurance biz.
> Every claim against the nuclear energy industry, ever, has been paid out of the funds that are paid into by the industry.
Claims are only part of the big picture, and there are numerous cases of spent taxpayer's money. Secrecy hides many tricks, but not all.
The trick is simple: underestimating costs, then letting taxpayer's money pay the difference and compensations to the industry. If a real cost appears the company involved is no more around to pay.
Here is an application: the only potential solution for nuclear waste is now the "Yucca Mountain Repository". It is studied since nearly 30 years, scheduled since 20 and can only "solve" the problem (there is no consensus about this), at the current rate of waste production up to 2014. Worse: after many postponings it will not open before 2017 and most people concerned simply don't want this to happen and even citizen not affected by the "Not In My Backyard" syndrom don't want anyone to coerce them.
The DOE has to cope with the waste by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, which says "the DOE will cope with waste, thanks to money paid by the nuclear industry" (leading to the Yucca Mountain project).
We are talking about big bucks, there: a GAO report (established for the Congress), stated in 2001 (page 2) that "Estimates of the potential damages vary widely, from DOE's estimate of about $2 billion to the nuclear industry's estimate of $50 billion.". The footnote 11 (page 19) is also interesting: then (2001) "concluded that DOE's schedule for licensing, constructing, and opening the repository by 2010 was optimistic by about 2 years and that DOE's estimate of the total cost of the program over its 100-plus-year lifetime--$58 billion (2000 dollars)--was understated by about $3 billion.". Remember: the opening date is now 2017. This imply new costs/risks (project failure)/claims/temporary storage/... Don't worry: taxpayer's money will, as usual, pay!
And here is a case: during "Maine Yankee" nuclear power plant decommission, for example, there was a lawsuit: Maine Yankee owners tried to get the DOE (dept. of Energy) pay (isn't this a "claim"?) for part of fuel removing (by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act), and won (approx 75M bucks). Isn't DOE's money taxpayer money? Better: two companies exploiting the plant were also awarded, for a grand total of 152 million. Granted, those companies payed during years for temporary storage because DOE failed to tackle the task (which has an explanation: failure to receive approvals for Yucca, which postponed it and added to the costs), but AFAIK the balance between their temporary storage costs and those earnings is positive: Maine Yankee wins taxpayer's money because the DOE promised to take care of the waste, and failed. Here is the best part: the DOE will very probably, beyond the awards, be coerced into removing the fuel. Yep, the taxpayer (again) helps some easy accounting write-offs. Anything "costs less" when taxpayer money discreetly pays!
Moreover this decommissioning seems to be done by rubblization which "is in fact a serious abrogation of law and environmental policy as currently evidenced by Maine and Connecticut legislation mandating that there will be no "low-level" radioactive waste
Those last 20 years (nearly half the history of nuclear on civil applications) were pretty calm.
How comes? Because of nocturnal periods (no exposition)? Think "multiple farms, scattered along the country" and "storage" (thanks to dams).
We will be able to compare after the last waste from the last decommissioned plant will cease to be dangerous. Centuries, at the very last.
Let's not forget that no one knows for sure why the Three Miles Island plant reactor vessel contained the danger, in other terms why it did not degenerate into a major disaster.