US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Total cost of nuclear

This is a discussion on Total cost of nuclear within the Energy forums, part of the US Discussion category; Quote: Originally Posted by Skull Pilot Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see images. Ok chicken ...


Go Back   US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum > US Discussion > Energy

Energy Oil, Drilling & Alternative Energies

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #46 (permalink)  
Old 06-10-2012, 02:17 PM
Banned
Member #15141
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,258
Thanks: 316
Thanked 76 Times in 68 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 0
bobgnote will niver phear yuo! bobgnote will niver phear yuo! bobgnote will niver phear yuo! bobgnote will niver phear yuo! bobgnote will niver phear yuo! bobgnote will niver phear yuo! bobgnote will niver phear yuo!
OK, Scum Puppy!

Quote: Originally Posted by Skull Pilot Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see images.
Ok chicken little
OK, Scum Puppy. You don't have brain 1, so don't drive number 2, in traffic. Stupid!
Reply With Quote
  #47 (permalink)  
Old 06-10-2012, 02:20 PM
Skull Pilot's Avatar
Mind Your Own Business
Member #7407
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 19,700
Thanks: 1,358
Thanked 6,616 Times in 4,070 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote: Originally Posted by Skull Pilot Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see images.
Ok chicken little
OK, Scum Puppy. You don't have brain 1, so don't drive number 2, in traffic. Stupid!
ooh skewered by your rapier like wit.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf06.html

Quote:
From the outset, there has been a strong awareness of the potential hazard of both nuclear criticality and release of radioactive materials from generating electricity with nuclear power.
As in other industries, the design and operation of nuclear power plants aims to minimise the likelihood of accidents, and avoid major human consequences when they occur.
There have been three major reactor accidents in the history of civil nuclear power - Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima. One was contained without harm to anyone, the next involved an intense fire without provision for containment, and the third severely tested the containment, allowing some release of radioactivity.
These are the only major accidents to have occurred in over 14,500 cumulative reactor-years of commercial nuclear power operation in 32 countries.
The risks from western nuclear power plants, in terms of the consequences of an accident or terrorist attack, are minimal compared with other commonly accepted risks. Nuclear power plants are very robust.
Safer than driving a car.

Compare that with the safety record of other power types

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf06app.html
__________________
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."-Albert Einstein

The disappearance of a sense of responsibility is the most far-reaching consequence of submission to authority.- Stanley Milgram

Last edited by Skull Pilot; 06-10-2012 at 02:24 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Skull Pilot For This Useful Post:
RoadVirus (06-11-2012)
  #48 (permalink)  
Old 06-10-2012, 02:28 PM
Mr Clean's Avatar
Registered User
Member #20594
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 7,967
Thanks: 2,885
Thanked 3,603 Times in 2,311 Posts
Mentioned: 47 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 2074
Mr Clean has a reputation beyond repute Mr Clean has a reputation beyond repute Mr Clean has a reputation beyond repute
Mr Clean has a reputation beyond repute Mr Clean has a reputation beyond repute Mr Clean has a reputation beyond repute Mr Clean has a reputation beyond repute Mr Clean has a reputation beyond repute Mr Clean has a reputation beyond repute Mr Clean has a reputation beyond repute Mr Clean has a reputation beyond repute Mr Clean has a reputation beyond repute
In this day and age, it's absolutley ludicrous to be producing electricity with coal or oil.

Nuclear is the way to go.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Mr Clean For This Useful Post:
Skull Pilot (06-10-2012)
  #49 (permalink)  
Old 06-10-2012, 08:35 PM
Registered User
Member #34109
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,955
Thanks: 1,449
Thanked 478 Times in 424 Posts
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 370
beagle9 may be on a path to greatness beagle9 may be on a path to greatness beagle9 may be on a path to greatness beagle9 may be on a path to greatness beagle9 may be on a path to greatness beagle9 may be on a path to greatness beagle9 may be on a path to greatness beagle9 may be on a path to greatness beagle9 may be on a path to greatness beagle9 may be on a path to greatness beagle9 may be on a path to greatness beagle9 may be on a path to greatness beagle9 may be on a path to greatness
first of all, when nuclear production started after WWII, it was said that each nuclear facility had a life for about forty years, and its waist was only temporarily going to be in the pond right next to the reactors. SInce then, both of these things have not happened, right as we speak we have an association of eight people who are pro industry, saying that these reactors can go on for another ten more years. How is this possible? Nuclear power is not safe to begin with, but when greedy people come into play, by not paying for things to keep these things safe! i don't know why some of you support these *******s.
In other words: End Nuclear power NOW, dismantle our electrical grids, pitch a tent, and bicycle to whatever job you can get that exists "without" electricity, and stick your middle finger up to "those *******s". Got it.
Have we somehow reached the point that if we have thoughts of returning back to when we didnot have or need so much Nuclear power in the amounts that we have it now, that the earth would soon stand still, and we would all begin to fall off of it ? This is how this response sounded to me by you..

In our state alone we have many Nuclear plants now, and we still have all the other sources of energy available to us that we had before (Coal & Hydro), and just as well it is all still in use, so how much energy production does a state actually need to sustain itself, or is it that these plants are supplying energy to many other states as well within the regions ? If this is the case, then it is understandable to supply regions with a sustainable power supply, if these regions are subjected to scarce resources for making their own power..... Just wondering is all....
Reply With Quote
  #50 (permalink)  
Old 06-11-2012, 03:43 PM
flacaltenn's Avatar
Not a spectator sport
Member #30473
Supporting Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
Posts: 13,837
Thanks: 5,149
Thanked 5,546 Times in 3,928 Posts
Mentioned: 646 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 6639
flacaltenn is cooler than the underside of a pillow flacaltenn is cooler than the underside of a pillow
flacaltenn is cooler than the underside of a pillow flacaltenn is cooler than the underside of a pillow flacaltenn is cooler than the underside of a pillow flacaltenn is cooler than the underside of a pillow flacaltenn is cooler than the underside of a pillow flacaltenn is cooler than the underside of a pillow flacaltenn is cooler than the underside of a pillow flacaltenn is cooler than the underside of a pillow flacaltenn is cooler than the underside of a pillow
Do you even KNOW the diff between Hanford and making nuclear bombs and a commercial nuclear reactor for generating electricity? Nobody reads thru shotgun spam....


The GOVT is the largest polluter.. Are you surprised by that?
__________________


Quote:
The liar's punishment is, not in the least that he is not believed, but that he cannot believe anyone else.
― George Bernard Shaw
Reply With Quote
  #51 (permalink)  
Old 06-12-2012, 12:56 AM
zonly1's Avatar
Probie still throwin'em
Member #23744
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: on the map
Posts: 1,255
Thanks: 194
Thanked 107 Times in 98 Posts
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 0
zonly1 is the forum stooge zonly1 is the forum stooge zonly1 is the forum stooge zonly1 is the forum stooge zonly1 is the forum stooge zonly1 is the forum stooge
Quote: Originally Posted by flacaltenn Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see images.
Do you even KNOW the diff between Hanford and making nuclear bombs and a commercial nuclear reactor for generating electricity? Nobody reads thru shotgun spam....


The GOVT is the largest polluter.. Are you surprised by that?
Yeah(side note) look at how they say TO conserve water and can only water on certain days. In the meantime, gubermint/local, you can witness H2O run off from gubermint own rent collected land right down the drain.

Last edited by zonly1; 06-12-2012 at 01:33 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #52 (permalink)  
Old 06-12-2012, 10:52 AM
Banned
Member #15141
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,258
Thanks: 316
Thanked 76 Times in 68 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 0
bobgnote will niver phear yuo! bobgnote will niver phear yuo! bobgnote will niver phear yuo! bobgnote will niver phear yuo! bobgnote will niver phear yuo! bobgnote will niver phear yuo! bobgnote will niver phear yuo!
Fatass, you don't read, period!

Quote: Originally Posted by flacaltenn Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see images.
Do you even KNOW the diff between Hanford and making nuclear bombs and a commercial nuclear reactor for generating electricity? Nobody reads thru shotgun spam....

The GOVT is the largest polluter.. Are you surprised by that?
Fatass, do you know the diff between your asshole and a hole in the ground?

Since you can't read or evaluate facts for inference, can you understand cost-overruns, tendencies, to tragic, costly out-comes, and overwhelming practical problems? NO? Then you are too stupid, to **** with nuclear energy or weapons-grade materials.

Did "the" government ever hire YOU, for some job? Sure it pollutes. "The" government is four levels of anal-compulsive, chronic ****up, Zionist Occupation Government.

But it does have some pretty good science websites, which are indeterminate, about re-greening, since somebody wants retards like you to hope, for nuclear energy, and other people will try to enrich uranium and gather plutonium, to make weapons, to kill everybody, even stupid idiots, like Fatass and Wiener***** and IanCrapforbrains and Suckassbil the meth-freak.
Reply With Quote
  #53 (permalink)  
Old 06-12-2012, 10:04 PM
Registered User
Member #34561
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 34
Thanks: 2
Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 0
Speaker crossed red line
In this day and age, it's absolutley ludicrous to be producing electricity with coal or oil.

Nuclear is the way to go.
i can see your signature at the moment is very much they way you think. "who gives a ****"

I will give you a chance to rethink what nuclear power is really doing. you see, in your comment, you told us that nuclear power is the way to go because coal and oil is dirty. ergo nuclear power is clean. now if you really could (and i am not being mean or anything here) please tell me why you feel that nuclear power is the way of the future. and dont lie, i really do want to know. that being said, i would like to tell you that fukishima has and will change the world (for the worse) for millions of more years. people will die becuase of this, and there are 1000's more of these things on this god dam planet.
Reply With Quote
  #54 (permalink)  
Old 06-13-2012, 12:20 AM
Unkotare's Avatar
Registered User
Member #31918
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 39,040
Thanks: 6,202
Thanked 8,148 Times in 6,045 Posts
Mentioned: 47 Post(s)
Tagged: 4 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 8856
Unkotare is cooler than the underside of a pillow Unkotare is cooler than the underside of a pillow Unkotare is cooler than the underside of a pillow Unkotare is cooler than the underside of a pillow Unkotare is cooler than the underside of a pillow
Unkotare is cooler than the underside of a pillow Unkotare is cooler than the underside of a pillow Unkotare is cooler than the underside of a pillow Unkotare is cooler than the underside of a pillow Unkotare is cooler than the underside of a pillow Unkotare is cooler than the underside of a pillow Unkotare is cooler than the underside of a pillow Unkotare is cooler than the underside of a pillow Unkotare is cooler than the underside of a pillow Unkotare is cooler than the underside of a pillow Unkotare is cooler than the underside of a pillow Unkotare is cooler than the underside of a pillow Unkotare is cooler than the underside of a pillow
I really dont think you are smart, and i think you should get off this forum. The reason i say this is because people look at these, and the things that you say make others like the way you do. Stupidity in humans is VERY contagious.

That would make you Typhoid Mary.
Reply With Quote
  #55 (permalink)  
Old 06-13-2012, 12:33 AM
Registered User
Member #37101
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,893
Thanks: 904
Thanked 2,515 Times in 1,739 Posts
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 1402
tjvh could be on the Supreme Court tjvh could be on the Supreme Court
tjvh could be on the Supreme Court tjvh could be on the Supreme Court tjvh could be on the Supreme Court tjvh could be on the Supreme Court tjvh could be on the Supreme Court tjvh could be on the Supreme Court tjvh could be on the Supreme Court tjvh could be on the Supreme Court tjvh could be on the Supreme Court
Fukushima - Total Cost - YouTube

watch and take in what is being told here. Forget the presumptions you think now, if everyone in America knows about the real cost of nuclear power, then we have a chance to get rid of it.


The man on right is Arnold Gunderson who was the chief executive for the Nuclear energy board, obviously this guy knows what he is talking about, because he used to be the head of Nuclear power. After retiring from his post, Arnie started to tell people the costs of nuclear power. In this video, he will talk about how maybe this way of getting energy is not the best. "Arnie" has no reason to spread fear into Americans, nor is he getting money for publicizing the truth about Nuclear power. Simply, he is speaking the truth, and it's probably in our best interest to listen.
Get rid of it in favor of what exactly? Some new "green technology" that hasn't been invented yet? Spare me the BS. What do you think is going to power electricity generating turbines if we arbitrarily just remove Nuclear, and Coal fired power plants from the equation? This:Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see images.
Reply With Quote
  #56 (permalink)  
Old 06-13-2012, 12:46 AM
Registered User
Member #34561
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 34
Thanks: 2
Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 0
Speaker crossed red line
Fukushima - Total Cost - YouTube

watch and take in what is being told here. Forget the presumptions you think now, if everyone in America knows about the real cost of nuclear power, then we have a chance to get rid of it.


The man on right is Arnold Gunderson who was the chief executive for the Nuclear energy board, obviously this guy knows what he is talking about, because he used to be the head of Nuclear power. After retiring from his post, Arnie started to tell people the costs of nuclear power. In this video, he will talk about how maybe this way of getting energy is not the best. "Arnie" has no reason to spread fear into Americans, nor is he getting money for publicizing the truth about Nuclear power. Simply, he is speaking the truth, and it's probably in our best interest to listen.
Get rid of it in favor of what exactly? Some new "green technology" that hasn't been invented yet? Spare me the BS. What do you think is going to power electricity generating turbines if we arbitrarily just remove Nuclear, and Coal fired power plants from the equation? This:Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see images.
This stuff is bad news. i don't want it even if it means sacrifices. earlier in this thread we were shooting around ideas to fill the gap. first conservation (but thats just me), solar on every building (maybe the government should be subsidizing solar instead of oil and nuclear+others)
Reply With Quote
  #57 (permalink)  
Old 06-13-2012, 12:52 AM
Unkotare's Avatar
Registered User
Member #31918
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 39,040
Thanks: 6,202
Thanked 8,148 Times in 6,045 Posts
Mentioned: 47 Post(s)
Tagged: 4 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 8856
Unkotare is cooler than the underside of a pillow Unkotare is cooler than the underside of a pillow Unkotare is cooler than the underside of a pillow Unkotare is cooler than the underside of a pillow Unkotare is cooler than the underside of a pillow
Unkotare is cooler than the underside of a pillow Unkotare is cooler than the underside of a pillow Unkotare is cooler than the underside of a pillow Unkotare is cooler than the underside of a pillow Unkotare is cooler than the underside of a pillow Unkotare is cooler than the underside of a pillow Unkotare is cooler than the underside of a pillow Unkotare is cooler than the underside of a pillow Unkotare is cooler than the underside of a pillow Unkotare is cooler than the underside of a pillow Unkotare is cooler than the underside of a pillow Unkotare is cooler than the underside of a pillow Unkotare is cooler than the underside of a pillow
What a dopey air-head 'Speaker' is. Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see images.
Reply With Quote
  #58 (permalink)  
Old 06-13-2012, 10:19 AM
flacaltenn's Avatar
Not a spectator sport
Member #30473
Supporting Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
Posts: 13,837
Thanks: 5,149
Thanked 5,546 Times in 3,928 Posts
Mentioned: 646 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 6639
flacaltenn is cooler than the underside of a pillow flacaltenn is cooler than the underside of a pillow
flacaltenn is cooler than the underside of a pillow flacaltenn is cooler than the underside of a pillow flacaltenn is cooler than the underside of a pillow flacaltenn is cooler than the underside of a pillow flacaltenn is cooler than the underside of a pillow flacaltenn is cooler than the underside of a pillow flacaltenn is cooler than the underside of a pillow flacaltenn is cooler than the underside of a pillow flacaltenn is cooler than the underside of a pillow
Look Speaker...

Whatcha got on nuclear is a fear of technology.. Just like my mother-in-law has of computers.. The more you know -- the more it makes imminent sense for our energy starved economy.. Let's start there.

We've NegaWatted (conserved) ourselves into the belief that this will stave off the need to build NEW sources of power.. Not true. ALL generators need to be replaced periodically. Conservation by definition makes energy RARE and EXPENSIVE. It should be CHEAP and PLENTIFUL.. Please ARGUE about that if you don't agree..

You wanted reasons to consider nuclear...

1) The WASTE stream from nuclear is about 0.7 of an OUNCE per household per year. That's LESS toxic waste per household than we now generate in batteries, cleaning products, paint, oil.. CERTAINLY we can handle that magnitude of waste.

2) There is more RADIOACTIVE pollution from coal fired plants than has EVER been spewed from a fatally damaged nuclear plant.. So while you're wringing your hands about Fukishima, the air continues to fill with NUCLEAR particles from coal..

I'll stop there for now and see if you REALLY RESPOND to a reasonable debate -0- or you revert back to hysteria and hope fairies..
__________________


Quote:
The liar's punishment is, not in the least that he is not believed, but that he cannot believe anyone else.
― George Bernard Shaw
Reply With Quote
  #59 (permalink)  
Old 06-13-2012, 11:56 AM
Banned
Member #15141
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,258
Thanks: 316
Thanked 76 Times in 68 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 0
bobgnote will niver phear yuo! bobgnote will niver phear yuo! bobgnote will niver phear yuo! bobgnote will niver phear yuo! bobgnote will niver phear yuo! bobgnote will niver phear yuo! bobgnote will niver phear yuo!
Start with cost over-runs, move over, to long-term risks, then think:

Quote: Originally Posted by flacaltenn Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see images.
Look Speaker...

Whatcha got on nuclear is a fear of technology.. Just like my mother-in-law has of computers.. The more you know -- the more it makes imminent sense for our energy starved economy.. Let's start there.

We've NegaWatted (conserved) ourselves into the belief that this will stave off the need to build NEW sources of power.. Not true. ALL generators need to be replaced periodically. Conservation by definition makes energy RARE and EXPENSIVE. It should be CHEAP and PLENTIFUL.. Please ARGUE about that if you don't agree..

You wanted reasons to consider nuclear...

1) The WASTE stream from nuclear is about 0.7 of an OUNCE per household per year. That's LESS toxic waste per household than we now generate in batteries, cleaning products, paint, oil.. CERTAINLY we can handle that magnitude of waste.

2) There is more RADIOACTIVE pollution from coal fired plants than has EVER been spewed from a fatally damaged nuclear plant.. So while you're wringing your hands about Fukishima, the air continues to fill with NUCLEAR particles from coal..

I'll stop there for now and see if you REALLY RESPOND to a reasonable debate -0- or you revert back to hysteria and hope fairies..
You sure are a stupid believer, in ****, rather than science or observable trends, Fatass.

Nuclear power starts with cost-overruns, moves to operational problems, and fiinishes, with a waste containment problem, which lasts 10,000 years.

Of course, only TMI, Chernobyl, and Fukushimi are meltdowns, but other plants had to be decommissioned and written off.

Who is going to pay for this ****? When you add up all the hidden costs, nuclear energy is the stuff of fascists, which idiots seek to manage, and neither fascists nor their ranting idiots can argue with FACTS and TRENDS:


Cost overruns of almost $1 billion — so far — at Ga. nuke reactors | Jay Bookman

Last month, a consortium of utilities including Atlanta-based Southern Company announced cost overruns of almost $1 billion at two new nuclear reactors being built near Waynesboro.

That’s an arresting number under any circumstances, but it looms even larger when you realize that major construction on the Vogtle 3 and 4 reactors has basically just begun, with at least five more years of construction to come.

And if costs soar, who’s going to pay for it? Southern Company and its subsidiary, Georgia Power, own 45.7 percent of the project, so its ratepayers’ share of these recent overruns would come to more than $400 million. But according to Buzz Miller, Southern’s executive vice president of nuclear development, that cost will be borne by contractors who are building the project.

“Our official position is that there’s no way we’re going to pay that amount,” Miller said Tuesday.

----------------------

Nuclear power's real chain reaction: spiralling costs | Damian Carrington | Environment | guardian.co.uk

Time is money, they say, and the new nuclear power plant being built by EDF at Flamanville in France is now at least four years behind time and €2.7bn over budget. EDF blamed the delay on two fatal construction accidents and dealing with safety analyses prompted by the Fukushima disaster.

So what does the news mean for the role for nuclear power in delivering the low-carbon electricity essential to tackling climate change? The three 'Cs' of energy policy are carbon, cost and continuity of supply, and Wednesday's announcement by EDF is relevant to the latter two.

The Flamanville fiasco shows once again that new nuclear power plants are not being built on time or on budget, diminishing the arguments in favour of them.

The only other new nuclear plant being built in Europe is at Olkiluoto in Finland. Areva, like EDF a state-controlled French company, told me this will be connected to the grid no sooner than 2013 and costs are now estimated at €5.6bn. That is four years late and €2.6bn over budget.

------------------------

What went wrong?

COSTS OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS — WHAT WENT WRONG?

No nuclear power plants in the United States ordered since 1974 will be completed, and many dozens of partially constructed plants have been abandoned. What cut off the growth of nuclear power so suddenly and so completely? The direct cause is not fear of reactor accidents, or of radioactive materials released into the environment, or of radioactive waste. It is rather that costs have escalated wildly, making nuclear plants too expensive to build. State commissions that regulate them require that utilities provide electric power to their customers at the lowest possible price. In the early 1970s this goal was achieved through the use of nuclear power plants. However, at the cost of recently completed plants, analyses indicate that it is cheaper to generate electricity by burning coal. Here we will attempt to understand how this switch occurred. It will serve as background for the next chapter, which presents the solution to these problems.

Several large nuclear power plants were completed in the early 1970s at a typical cost of $170 million, whereas plants of the same size completed in 1983 cost an average of $1.7 billion, a 10-fold increase. Some plants completed in the late 1980s have cost as much as $5 billion, 30 times what they cost 15 years earlier. Inflation, of course, has played a role, but the consumer price index increased only by a factor of 2.2 between 1973 and 1983, and by just 18% from 1983 to 1988. What caused the remaining large increase? Ask the opponents of nuclear power and they will recite a succession of horror stories, many of them true, about mistakes, inefficiency, sloppiness, and ineptitude. They will create the impression that people who build nuclear plants are a bunch of bungling incompetents. The only thing they won't explain is how these same "bungling incompetents" managed to build nuclear power plants so efficiently, so rapidly, and so inexpensively in the early 1970s.

For example, Commonwealth Edison, the utility serving the Chicago area, completed its Dresden nuclear plants in 1970-71 for $146/kW, its Quad Cities plants in 1973 for $164/kW, and its Zion plants in 1973-74 for $280/kW. But its LaSalle nuclear plants completed in 1982-84 cost $1,160/kW, and its Byron and Braidwood plants completed in 1985-87 cost $1880/kW — a 13-fold increase over the 17-year period.

Northeast Utilities completed its Millstone 1,2, and 3 nuclear plants, respectively, for $153/kW in 1971, $487/kW in 1975, and $3,326/kW in 1986, a 22-fold increase in 15 years. Duke Power, widely considered to be one of the most efficient utilities in the nation in handling nuclear technology, finished construction on its Oconee plants in 1973-74 for $181/kW, on its McGuire plants in 1981-84 for $848/kW, and on its Catauba plants in 1985-87 for $1,703/kW, a nearly 10-fold increase in 14 years.

Philadelphia Electric Company completed its two Peach Bottom plants in 1974 at an average cost of $382 million, but the second of its two Limerick plants, completed in 1988, cost $2.9 billion — 7.6 times as much. A long list of such price escalations could be quoted, and there are no exceptions.

The True Cost Of Nuclear Power

In May 1999, the 104 U.S. nuclear power plants produced 56 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity. This represented 21.8% of the utility-generated power for that month. These figures demonstrate what is typical of the U.S. dependence on nuclear power, a form of power generation involving enormous expense, radiation pollution, the threat of a nuclear accident, and nuclear waste. Advocates of nuclear power believe that there are adequate scientific solutions to these problems, but they are not putting up the capital for the nuclear plants. The federal government has made us, the taxpayers, the equivalent of stockholders in nuclear power; nuclear utilities depend on government bailouts, insurance and subsidies. We must put a stop to nuclear power because of the grave financial and environmental risks.
In February 1999, residential consumers paid an average of 7.94 cents per kilowatt-hour for electricity; industrial users paid an average of 4.33 cents per kilowatt-hour. Compare that with 1997, when electricity cost about 5% more; the cost of hydroelectric power on a ratepayer's bill was from two to eight cents; gas, from three to five cents; coal, five to six cents; oil, six to eight cents; and nuclear power, 10 to 12 cents.

The cost of nuclear power would be much higher still if not for federal subsidies. Nuclear power is tied up in what economists call "externalities" and "external costs and benefits." Externalities are when "some people bear costs that they are not paid or compensated for, these costs are said to be external costs," says Dr. Roger A. McCain, Professor of Economics at Drexel University. "The idea is that the decision-maker, who does not pay for the costs nor get paid for the benefits, doesn't take them into consideration in deciding how resources shall be allocated. He has no motive to produce benefits that he doesn't get, nor to cut back on costs that he doesn't pay. In general, if there are 'external' costs or benefits or both, we say that there are 'externalities,' and we can expect markets to be inefficient when there are externalities.

Satanic nukes? Finnish plant's cost overruns to $6.66 billion | ThinkProgress

Economics of new nuclear power plants - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

-------------------

$12 Billion Nuclear Waste Treatment Plant at Risk of Cost Overruns - Waste Mangagement World


When complete, the Hanford Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant will process and stabilize 53 million gallons (200 million liters) of radioactive and chemical waste currently stored at the Hanford Site.

According to the company, the waste is a byproduct of plutonium-production during World War II and the Cold War era and is in 177 below ground aging tanks.

Bechtel says that vitrification technology will blend the waste with glass-forming materials and heat it to 2100 degrees Fahrenheit (1149 degrees Celsius). The mixture will then be poured into stainless steel canisters to cool and solidify. In this glass form, the waste is stable and impervious to the environment and safe for long-term storage.

Construction began in October 2001 and is currently 60% complete.

However, according to the Tri-City Herald, a briefing document by the Construction Project Review team claims that the $12.2 billion figure is at risk due to uncertainties in congressional funding for the project, increased cost growth outpacing savings and delays in resolving technical waste mixing issues.

The team of industry, academic and DoE members assesses progress and potential problems on the project and advises the DoE approximately every six months.

According to the Tri-City Herald, the document said that if Congress continues to provide the budgets that the DoE has outlined, the review team has identified a potential cost overrun of $800 million to $900 million.

However, the report goes on to add that that overrun may be offset by $350 million if the DoE proceeds with a phased commissioning of the plant, preparing some buildings to operate and then moving on to others, rather than commissioning the entire plant at once..

Oh, wow. By maneuvering, costs can be avoided. We'll see if that works, eh?

------------------------

Then there's the waste:

The Bane of Nuclear Energy: Nuclear Waste - Storage

Radioactive waste - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

-----------------------

And the decommissioned plants:

Nuclear decommissioning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nuclear Energy Institute - Reactors Shut Down or Decommissioned

------------------------

Technology for renewable energy hasn't been researched very well, since Henry Ford made hemp-ethanol and hemp-plastic, since the Model-T. But despite intevening corruption, in prison industry, petroleum, war, and nuclear lobbies, renewable tech is alive and promising:

New power capacity from renewable sources tops fossil fuels again in US, Europe

In 2009, for the second year in a row, both the US and Europe added more power capacity from renewable sources such as wind and solar than conventional sources like coal, gas and nuclear, according to twin reports launched today by the United Nations Environment Programme and the Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century (REN21).

Renewables accounted for 60 per cent of newly installed capacity in Europe and more than 50 per cent in the USA in 2009. This year or next, experts predict, the world as a whole will add more capacity to the electricity supply from renewable than non-renewable sources.

The reports detail trends in the global green energy sector, including which sources attracted the greatest attention from investors and governments in different world regions.

They say investment in core clean energy (new renewables, biofuels and energy efficiency) decreased by 7% in 2009, to $162 billion. Many sub-sectors declined significantly in money invested, including large (utility) scale solar power and biofuels. However, there was record investment in wind power. If spending on solar water heaters, as well as total installation costs for rooftop solar PV, were included, total investment in 2009 actually increased in 2009, bucking the economic trend.

New private and public sector investments in core clean energy leapt 53 per cent in China in 2009. China added 37 gigawatts (GW) of renewable power capacity, more than any other country.

Globally, nearly 80 GW of renewable power capacity was added in 2009, including 31 GW of hydro and 48 GW of non-hydro capacity. This combined renewables figure is now closing in on the 83GW of fossil-fuel, thermal capacity installed in the same year. If the trend continues, then 2010 or 2011 could be the first year that new capacity added in low carbon power exceeds that in fossil-fuel stations.

Investment in renewable energy power capacity (excluding large hydro) in 2009 was comparable to that in fossil-fuel generation, at around $100 billion each. If the estimated $39 billion of investment in large hydro is included, then total investment in renewables exceeded that in fossil-fuel generation for the second successive year.

China surpassed the US in 2009 as the country with the greatest investment in clean energy. China’s wind farm development was the strongest investment feature of the year by far, although there were other areas of strength worldwide in 2009, notably North Sea offshore wind investment and the financing of power storage and electric vehicle technology companies

-----------------

Nuclear energy pimps lie, and lie, and lie, about costs. Then they can't design a core or a cooling system I'd want, and they can't store the wastes and spent core materials, without shooting up the planet, with depleted uranium ammo, which breaks chromosomes.

So what about only three meltdowns? Stagg Field in Chicago almost melted down, from screwing around, with nuclear energy. Numerous decommissions have to be written off. And then, what will happen, with the nuclear waste we already failed to store, at Yucca Mountain?

It can always come back to bite us, so kids will be born, without money, skulls, arms, or legs.

Don't let stupid people lie and steal, then kill us, while spouting crap about how cheap their instruments of mass destruction look, when they are lying and cheating, looking to steal.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to bobgnote For This Useful Post:
flacaltenn (06-13-2012)
  #60 (permalink)  
Old 06-13-2012, 01:10 PM
Registered User
Member #34561
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 34
Thanks: 2
Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 0
Speaker crossed red line
What a dopey air-head 'Speaker' is. Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see images.
if its so ok then you should have the spent fuel under your pillow you retarded fat ****. i think that anyone who thinks that nuclear is safe and "the way to go" should live with it. right in their house. walk you talk dude, but i'll tell you what, I refuse to have a bunch of high school drop out **** heads to put me and my family in danger. who gives a **** if the nuclear industry falls. OH NO A BUNCH OF RICH *******S LOST THEIR JOBS THAT MURDER MILLIONS. its incredible the sheer power of a bunch of idiots. I will never underestimate a whole lot of stupid people again.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Lower Navigation
Go Back   US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum > US Discussion > Energy
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:36 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.