Comments on: The “Corporate Killer” that is Nuclear Power http://priceofoil.org/2009/11/11/the-%e2%80%9ccorporate-killer%e2%80%9d-that-is-nuclear-power/ Oil Change International campaigns to expose the true costs of oil and facilitate the coming transition towards clean energy. We are dedicated to identifying and overcoming political barriers to that transition. Fri, 19 Mar 2010 03:41:08 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1 hourly 1 By: Denis Sauvageau http://priceofoil.org/2009/11/11/the-%e2%80%9ccorporate-killer%e2%80%9d-that-is-nuclear-power/comment-page-1/#comment-1404431 Denis Sauvageau Sat, 14 Nov 2009 01:02:25 +0000 http://priceofoil.org/?p=4074#comment-1404431 Unfortunately the article does not include after the fact costs such as babysitting and decommissioning of nuclear power plants. The US has spent several hundred million dollars to find a resting place for the radioactive waste and the latest news indicates that this project may very well be abandonned. Who's paying for that? Full cycle costs cannot be calculated on any reactor build because the radioactivity in the building materials prevents the site from being dismantled adn returned to pre-reactor times. For example the Gentilly 1 reactor in Quebec Canada operated for a mere 180 days and then was abandonned due to safety issues. It was decommissioned in 1986 and at the time sources indicated that it would take another 50 years to figure out what to do with it. There is no way that anyone can calculate the cost of something 10 years down the road let alone 50 years from now! I guess the secret to building nuclear power plants is to convince governments that it's OK for future generations to deal with the leftovers. I'm not so sure our children will be prowd of their expensive inheritence. Unfortunately the article does not include after the fact costs such as babysitting and decommissioning of nuclear power plants. The US has spent several hundred million dollars to find a resting place for the radioactive waste and the latest news indicates that this project may very well be abandonned. Who’s paying for that?

Full cycle costs cannot be calculated on any reactor build because the radioactivity in the building materials prevents the site from being dismantled adn returned to pre-reactor times. For example the Gentilly 1 reactor in Quebec Canada operated for a mere 180 days and then was abandonned due to safety issues. It was decommissioned in 1986 and at the time sources indicated that it would take another 50 years to figure out what to do with it. There is no way that anyone can calculate the cost of something 10 years down the road let alone 50 years from now! I guess the secret to building nuclear power plants is to convince governments that it’s OK for future generations to deal with the leftovers. I’m not so sure our children will be prowd of their expensive inheritence.

]]> By: John Wheeler http://priceofoil.org/2009/11/11/the-%e2%80%9ccorporate-killer%e2%80%9d-that-is-nuclear-power/comment-page-1/#comment-1402898 John Wheeler Thu, 12 Nov 2009 04:40:13 +0000 http://priceofoil.org/?p=4074#comment-1402898 This is a very insightful article. I tend to agree the financial risks remain a challenge for new nuclear projects. I also believe that much of the risk can be managed with an intelligent regulatory framework that produces stability and certainty. The Citibank report cites uncertainty in construction costs, power price, and operational costs but appears to use worse case scenarios and first-of-a-kind projects to support their case. For example, they use the cost over runs and delays at Olkiluoto, the first EPR reactor project as evidence that reactor builders are unlikely to meet schedules and control costs, but fail to mention the Ling’ao 1, Quinshan 2-B, and other reactor projects in Asia that were completed on or ahead of schedule. Also, they estimate the new plants would achieve about an 80% capacity factor when recent US experience shows consistent performance at >90%. John Wheeler Producer and Host This Week in Nuclear This is a very insightful article. I tend to agree the financial risks remain a challenge for new nuclear projects. I also believe that much of the risk can be managed with an intelligent regulatory framework that produces stability and certainty. The Citibank report cites uncertainty in construction costs, power price, and operational costs but appears to use worse case scenarios and first-of-a-kind projects to support their case.

For example, they use the cost over runs and delays at Olkiluoto, the first EPR reactor project as evidence that reactor builders are unlikely to meet schedules and control costs, but fail to mention the Ling’ao 1, Quinshan 2-B, and other reactor projects in Asia that were completed on or ahead of schedule. Also, they estimate the new plants would achieve about an 80% capacity factor when recent US experience shows consistent performance at >90%.

John Wheeler
Producer and Host
This Week in Nuclear

]]>