If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(SanDiegoUnionTribune)   The only thing more expensive than building a nuclear power plant is taking one apart   (utsandiego.com) divider line 67
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

2263 clicks; posted to Geek » on 02 Aug 2014 at 10:36 PM (20 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



67 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-08-02 09:21:29 PM  
Generally the decommissioning costs are already priced into the generating costs.
 
2014-08-02 10:13:07 PM  
Knows a thing or two about that.

www.empireonline.com

/THERE WAS A SHUDDER!
 
2014-08-02 10:27:45 PM  

b2theory: Generally the decommissioning costs are already priced into the generating costs.


Reactor 1 ran for 24 years, from 1968 to 1992. Reactor 2 ran 29 years, from 1983 to 2012. And Reactor 3 ran 28 years, from 1984 to 2012. That's 81 years of combined service, not counting downtime. So, the $4.4B decommissioning costs, plus the $3.3B leftover plant costs, divided by 81 years, means that SoCal Edison customers have been paying $95M per year to get ready for this little project, assuming there aren't any unforeseen cost overruns. And that doesn't include what it cost to build, maintain, and operate the reactors and associated systems. I know that using wind to turn turbines, and using sunlight to generate steam is a crazy fools errand, what with all the wind pollution and occasional dihydrogen monoxide spill. But I have to believe the decommissioning costs are lower.
 
2014-08-02 10:35:59 PM  

Notabunny: b2theory: Generally the decommissioning costs are already priced into the generating costs.

Reactor 1 ran for 24 years, from 1968 to 1992. Reactor 2 ran 29 years, from 1983 to 2012. And Reactor 3 ran 28 years, from 1984 to 2012. That's 81 years of combined service, not counting downtime. So, the $4.4B decommissioning costs, plus the $3.3B leftover plant costs, divided by 81 years, means that SoCal Edison customers have been paying $95M per year to get ready for this little project, assuming there aren't any unforeseen cost overruns. And that doesn't include what it cost to build, maintain, and operate the reactors and associated systems. I know that using wind to turn turbines, and using sunlight to generate steam is a crazy fools errand, what with all the wind pollution and occasional dihydrogen monoxide spill. But I have to believe the decommissioning costs are lower.


Don't forget onsite spent fuel storage from now until...

/like Rancho Seco, come to think of it
 
2014-08-02 10:39:50 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Notabunny: b2theory: Generally the decommissioning costs are already priced into the generating costs.

Reactor 1 ran for 24 years, from 1968 to 1992. Reactor 2 ran 29 years, from 1983 to 2012. And Reactor 3 ran 28 years, from 1984 to 2012. That's 81 years of combined service, not counting downtime. So, the $4.4B decommissioning costs, plus the $3.3B leftover plant costs, divided by 81 years, means that SoCal Edison customers have been paying $95M per year to get ready for this little project, assuming there aren't any unforeseen cost overruns. And that doesn't include what it cost to build, maintain, and operate the reactors and associated systems. I know that using wind to turn turbines, and using sunlight to generate steam is a crazy fools errand, what with all the wind pollution and occasional dihydrogen monoxide spill. But I have to believe the decommissioning costs are lower.

Don't forget onsite spent fuel storage from now until...

/like Rancho Seco, come to think of it


I learned to windsurf in Rancho Seco lake. Always warm.
 
2014-08-02 10:40:41 PM  
That's why they made this little guy.
 
2014-08-02 10:48:38 PM  

Notabunny: I learned to windsurf in Rancho Seco lake. Always warm.


I worked on the solar collectors out there

/got lost once and wandered right up to the fence around the containment building without anyone questioning me at all
//hardhat is as good as a badge, I guess
 
2014-08-02 10:50:04 PM  

TruBluTroll: That's why they made this little guy.


That's the 200th coolest thing I've seen all day! (spent the day at the lake)
Some lucky kid gets to brag that their dad is a lasergun-wielding spaceman.
 
2014-08-02 10:58:36 PM  

Notabunny: b2theory: Generally the decommissioning costs are already priced into the generating costs.

Reactor 1 ran for 24 years, from 1968 to 1992. Reactor 2 ran 29 years, from 1983 to 2012. And Reactor 3 ran 28 years, from 1984 to 2012. That's 81 years of combined service, not counting downtime. So, the $4.4B decommissioning costs, plus the $3.3B leftover plant costs, divided by 81 years, means that SoCal Edison customers have been paying $95M per year to get ready for this little project, assuming there aren't any unforeseen cost overruns. And that doesn't include what it cost to build, maintain, and operate the reactors and associated systems. I know that using wind to turn turbines, and using sunlight to generate steam is a crazy fools errand, what with all the wind pollution and occasional dihydrogen monoxide spill. But I have to believe the decommissioning costs are lower.


Converted to California currency: that's less than 4 Clippers franchises....meh.
 
2014-08-02 11:09:33 PM  

Notabunny: b2theory: Generally the decommissioning costs are already priced into the generating costs.

Reactor 1 ran for 24 years, from 1968 to 1992. Reactor 2 ran 29 years, from 1983 to 2012. And Reactor 3 ran 28 years, from 1984 to 2012. That's 81 years of combined service, not counting downtime. So, the $4.4B decommissioning costs, plus the $3.3B leftover plant costs, divided by 81 years, means that SoCal Edison customers have been paying $95M per year to get ready for this little project, assuming there aren't any unforeseen cost overruns. And that doesn't include what it cost to build, maintain, and operate the reactors and associated systems. I know that using wind to turn turbines, and using sunlight to generate steam is a crazy fools errand, what with all the wind pollution and occasional dihydrogen monoxide spill. But I have to believe the decommissioning costs are lower.


The fact that you spend that much decomissioning a reactor should give you an idea as to how cheap the electricity it produces is.

I am 100% in favor of a massive build out of wind and solar. I was just pointing out that the utility is required to include the amortized cost of decommissioning the reactor in the operating expenses. Generally the budget for decomissioning it has been collected over the life of the reactor.
 
2014-08-02 11:12:27 PM  
b2theory:

Generally the decommissioning costs are already priced into the generating costs.

Except for where it's not. The company that runs the facility handles the shutdown, but the DOE handles the waste handling and storage forever. There it's your and my tax moneys.
 
2014-08-02 11:13:21 PM  
If there's one technology that needs to be disinvented, it's nuclear fission.  Not that being careful here is really going to matter.  Fukashima is set to make the Pacific plenty hot no matter what they do here.
 
2014-08-02 11:17:04 PM  

TruBluTroll: That's why they made this little guy.


So what's wrong with a plasma cutter and a cut off tool?
 
2014-08-02 11:20:14 PM  

maxheck: b2theory:

Generally the decommissioning costs are already priced into the generating costs.

Except for where it's not. The company that runs the facility handles the shutdown, but the DOE handles the waste handling and storage forever. There it's your and my tax moneys.


So? When we change the laws regarding reprocessing of nuclear waste that material will be worth quiet a bit and will be significantly less radioactive.
 
2014-08-02 11:22:03 PM  

Jarhead_h: If there's one technology that needs to be disinvented, it's nuclear fission.  Not that being careful here is really going to matter.  Fukashima is set to make the Pacific plenty hot no matter what they do here.


I have heard that the entire Pacific is soooooo radioactive they are going to shut it down for swimming.
 
2014-08-02 11:35:06 PM  
b2theory:

maxheck: b2theory:

Generally the decommissioning costs are already priced into the generating costs.

Except for where it's not. The company that runs the facility handles the shutdown, but the DOE handles the waste handling and storage forever. There it's your and my tax moneys.

So? When we change the laws regarding reprocessing of nuclear waste that material will be worth quiet a bit and will be significantly less radioactive.


You know that the poster child for reprocessing is looking for their own dump site, right? That they've been shipping tons to the Russians since they started in '75? Go on. Tell me France has a reprocessing operation working. They've tried repeatedly and failed.

Reprocessing the high-level stuff sounds great until you realize how many tons of low level waste it generates.

I was pro-nuclear energy myself until I spent a year at various US national labs actually talking with the guys who dealt with it. Afterwards, maybe notsomuch. I would love for this to work. It doesn't.
 
2014-08-02 11:36:08 PM  

mrlewish: TruBluTroll: That's why they made this little guy.

So what's wrong with a plasma cutter and a cut off tool?


or a big ass circular saw with carbide or diamond blades?
toss the used blades and saw into the same trash as the waste parts ...
 
2014-08-02 11:40:17 PM  

TruBluTroll: That's why they made this little guy.


Well that was crap. you could have done that considerably faster, plus get much cleaner cuts, with a standard oxy/acetylene cutting torch.
 
2014-08-02 11:49:19 PM  

Jarhead_h: If there's one technology that needs to be disinvented, it's nuclear fission.  Not that being careful here is really going to matter.  Fukashima is set to make the Pacific plenty hot no matter what they do here.


You sound ignorant.

Do an LCA of the major power generation methods. Find out the radiation released and deaths from each. Correct for kWh produced. Include all accidents. See how nuclear holds up.
 
2014-08-02 11:53:22 PM  
rustypouch

Jarhead_h: If there's one technology that needs to be disinvented, it's nuclear fission. Not that being careful here is really going to matter. Fukashima is set to make the Pacific plenty hot no matter what they do here.

You sound ignorant.

Do an LCA of the major power generation methods. Find out the radiation released and deaths from each. Correct for kWh produced. Include all accidents. See how nuclear holds up.


One caveat: Add "Yet"
 
2014-08-02 11:55:56 PM  

ReapTheChaos: TruBluTroll: That's why they made this little guy.


Well that was crap. you could have done that considerably faster, plus get much cleaner cuts, with a standard oxy/acetylene cutting torch.


Except that depending on what type of radiation activated materials give off, the oxy/acetylene gas could also become activated, creating a stream of radioactive gas far more difficult to contain.
 
2014-08-02 11:59:07 PM  

mrlewish: TruBluTroll: That's why they made this little guy.

So what's wrong with a plasma cutter and a cut off tool?


Or explosives?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pM2kynbs-Uw
 
2014-08-03 12:01:14 AM  
One of the things that has always amused / alarmed me about Teabaggies like Rand Paul.

Sure, let's shut everything down. Apres Moi, La Deluge.

And then Hanford cuts loose on the Pacific NW, and Savannah River pees down to Atlanta.
 
2014-08-03 12:27:05 AM  
f.kulfoto.com
 
2014-08-03 01:13:22 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Notabunny: I learned to windsurf in Rancho Seco lake. Always warm.

I worked on the solar collectors out there

/got lost once and wandered right up to the fence around the containment building without anyone questioning me at all
//hardhat is as good as a badge, I guess


When I was a teenager (I'm 37 now) me and a friend took a road trip. We ended up in the parking lot of Salem Nuclear Powerplant (NJ). Today you can get within a few miles of the place without armed guards stations in your way
 
2014-08-03 02:23:50 AM  

styckx: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Notabunny: I learned to windsurf in Rancho Seco lake. Always warm.

I worked on the solar collectors out there

/got lost once and wandered right up to the fence around the containment building without anyone questioning me at all
//hardhat is as good as a badge, I guess

When I was a teenager (I'm 37 now) me and a friend took a road trip. We ended up in the parking lot of Salem Nuclear Powerplant (NJ). Today you can get within a few miles of the place without armed guards stations in your way


Oyster Creek is the oldest running nuclear plant in the nation and I believe it is the only one without cooling towers as well
 
2014-08-03 02:28:54 AM  

 Take it apart?  You want us to get past those Monolith psychos and deal with the Wish Granter on top of the Sarcophagus, and now you want us to  take it apart?


a.imageshack.us

 
2014-08-03 02:50:38 AM  
Have they thought about recycling?

s3.amazonaws.com
 
2014-08-03 04:56:00 AM  
Hopefully, photovoltaic will get even more efficient.  If they spent 7 billion on solar panels, you may have more power than nuclear, but I fail at math so I don't know.
 
2014-08-03 07:50:08 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Notabunny: b2theory: Generally the decommissioning costs are already priced into the generating costs.

Reactor 1 ran for 24 years, from 1968 to 1992. Reactor 2 ran 29 years, from 1983 to 2012. And Reactor 3 ran 28 years, from 1984 to 2012. That's 81 years of combined service, not counting downtime. So, the $4.4B decommissioning costs, plus the $3.3B leftover plant costs, divided by 81 years, means that SoCal Edison customers have been paying $95M per year to get ready for this little project, assuming there aren't any unforeseen cost overruns. And that doesn't include what it cost to build, maintain, and operate the reactors and associated systems. I know that using wind to turn turbines, and using sunlight to generate steam is a crazy fools errand, what with all the wind pollution and occasional dihydrogen monoxide spill. But I have to believe the decommissioning costs are lower.

Don't forget onsite spent fuel storage from now until...

/like Rancho Seco, come to think of it


If we would stop being idiots about reprocessing this wouldn't be a problem.
 
2014-08-03 08:23:01 AM  

Jarhead_h: If there's one technology that needs to be disinvented, it's nuclear fission.  Not that being careful here is really going to matter.  Fukashima is set to make the Pacific plenty hot no matter what they do here.


Now that Germany, the paragon of virtue brought up in every "clean energy" fantasy, has shut down 8 reactors they have to restart coal power plants and are burning more coal than they have in the last 25 years...

Solar and wind can do a lot, but for the foreseeable future they are going to need some kind of backing base load energy source.. For the vast majority of the planet that's coal, natural gas, or nuclear...

Nuclear, with all it's warts, is huge net benefit for the environment. There are millions upon millions of tons of C02 not in the atmosphere right now because of nuclear power...
 
2014-08-03 08:28:04 AM  

AngryDragon: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Notabunny: b2theory: Generally the decommissioning costs are already priced into the generating costs.

Reactor 1 ran for 24 years, from 1968 to 1992. Reactor 2 ran 29 years, from 1983 to 2012. And Reactor 3 ran 28 years, from 1984 to 2012. That's 81 years of combined service, not counting downtime. So, the $4.4B decommissioning costs, plus the $3.3B leftover plant costs, divided by 81 years, means that SoCal Edison customers have been paying $95M per year to get ready for this little project, assuming there aren't any unforeseen cost overruns. And that doesn't include what it cost to build, maintain, and operate the reactors and associated systems. I know that using wind to turn turbines, and using sunlight to generate steam is a crazy fools errand, what with all the wind pollution and occasional dihydrogen monoxide spill. But I have to believe the decommissioning costs are lower.

Don't forget onsite spent fuel storage from now until...

/like Rancho Seco, come to think of it

If we would stop being idiots about reprocessing this wouldn't be a problem.


Thank you. Why haven't we embraced a closed fuel cycle? Is there an actual reason besides "nuclear scary"?
 
2014-08-03 08:30:35 AM  

dforkus: Jarhead_h: If there's one technology that needs to be disinvented, it's nuclear fission.  Not that being careful here is really going to matter.  Fukashima is set to make the Pacific plenty hot no matter what they do here.

Now that Germany, the paragon of virtue brought up in every "clean energy" fantasy, has shut down 8 reactors they have to restart coal power plants and are burning more coal than they have in the last 25 years...

Solar and wind can do a lot, but for the foreseeable future they are going to need some kind of backing base load energy source.. For the vast majority of the planet that's coal, natural gas, or nuclear...

Nuclear, with all it's warts, is huge net benefit for the environment. There are millions upon millions of tons of C02 not in the atmosphere right now because of nuclear power...


Here in Japan too. C02 output has climbed by about the same amount. And the international community is patting Germany and Japan on the back for this regressive policy.
 
2014-08-03 08:58:54 AM  

Likwit: If we would stop being idiots about reprocessing this wouldn't be a problem.

Thank you. Why haven't we embraced a closed fuel cycle? Is there an actual reason besides "nuclear scary"?


Two reasons.  The government won't allow reprocessing due to the fear of weapons grade fissile material getting loose.  This despite an unknown amount being loose in the world under no regulation due to the USSR's collapse.  Two, the environmental nutjobs use the excuse of waste as the primary reason to eliminate nuclear power despite the fact that a modern design with reprocessing is something like 99% efficient.

The commercial development of an Integrated Fast Reactor would solve most of these problems almost instantly.  A nuclear reactor less than 20 feet across that simply stops working if something goes wrong (passively safe with NO meltdown risk), needs no refueling for 20 years , and produces almost no waste (can even use other waste for fuel) .  There is one operating in Russia right now and China spins up their first one soon.  We won't move on it because the above two reasons have us locked in a negative feedback loop.  You can thank the Democrats for killing the US IFR project in 1994.

It's ridiculous.
 
2014-08-03 10:03:29 AM  
San Onofre actually could have run safely at 70% power for another few decades. The new steam generators had a design flaw that only mattered at 100% power.

Unfortunately, the area is saturated with filthy hippies, who fought everything tooth and nail with every excuse they could drum up. They eventually forced the utility into having to re-license the plant at a lower power level, which is such an onerous process it was financially untenable.
 
2014-08-03 10:20:52 AM  
Likwit: Here in Japan too. C02 output has climbed by about the same amount. And the international community is patting Germany and Japan on the back for this regressive policy.
Don't forget France. Their new policies effectively eliminate any new nuclear plants, which mean over the next decade or two, they'll be closing down most of their nukes. After that, it'll be pretty much only be China left in the nuclear power game.

Commercial nuclear power is dead. What's left is only running on life support.
 
2014-08-03 10:31:33 AM  
AngryDragon:

Two, the environmental nutjobs use the excuse of waste as the primary reason to eliminate nuclear power despite the fact that a modern design with reprocessing is something like 99% efficient.

Which is why France keeps shipping waste to Russia in order to get rid of it, despite their crowing about having a "closed system" since the 1970's.

*EVERY MEANS OF REPROCESSING HIGH LEVEL WASTE CREATES MANY TIMES AS MUCH LOW LEVEL WASTE* So many people on the internet seem to think you can just shovel the ashes of one processes into a different reactor and magic happens.

You're repeating a line of bullshiat. UREX and PUREX both create immense amounts of waste. At best you can be "technically correct" in saying that the high-level fuel gets recycled, but you have to ignore the literal tonnes of hot and corrosive fluorine compounds which have to be stored. Quit it. It's like the term "Clean Coal."
 
2014-08-03 10:53:21 AM  

maxheck: b2theory:

Generally the decommissioning costs are already priced into the generating costs.

Except for where it's not. The company that runs the facility handles the shutdown, but the DOE handles the waste handling and storage forever. There it's your and my tax moneys.


Decommissioning and waste storage are two different problems. The decommissioning, in this case, is fully funded. Edison CEO Ted Craver said enough funds already have been collected from utility customers to pay for the project.
 
2014-08-03 10:56:21 AM  

Notabunny: b2theory: Generally the decommissioning costs are already priced into the generating costs.

Reactor 1 ran for 24 years, from 1968 to 1992. Reactor 2 ran 29 years, from 1983 to 2012. And Reactor 3 ran 28 years, from 1984 to 2012. That's 81 years of combined service, not counting downtime. So, the $4.4B decommissioning costs, plus the $3.3B leftover plant costs, divided by 81 years, means that SoCal Edison customers have been paying $95M per year to get ready for this little project, assuming there aren't any unforeseen cost overruns. And that doesn't include what it cost to build, maintain, and operate the reactors and associated systems. I know that using wind to turn turbines, and using sunlight to generate steam is a crazy fools errand, what with all the wind pollution and occasional dihydrogen monoxide spill. But I have to believe the decommissioning costs are lower.


I really don't think you can combine number like that. It doesn't really mean much. Say you start a new company and hire 100 college graduates. After a year, they have "100 years of combined experience" but you still have 100 employees with only a year of experience. It doesn't build like that.
 
2014-08-03 11:01:05 AM  

Tobin_Lam: maxheck: b2theory:

Generally the decommissioning costs are already priced into the generating costs.

Except for where it's not. The company that runs the facility handles the shutdown, but the DOE handles the waste handling and storage forever. There it's your and my tax moneys.

Decommissioning and waste storage are two different problems. The decommissioning, in this case, is fully funded. Edison CEO Ted Craver said enough funds already have been collected from utility customers to pay for the project.


Yet waste storage is still part of the process, and Edison isn't paying for it. It's one of those accounting tricks people use to make nuclear power look economical.
 
2014-08-03 11:07:43 AM  

maxheck: Tobin_Lam: maxheck: b2theory:

Generally the decommissioning costs are already priced into the generating costs.

Except for where it's not. The company that runs the facility handles the shutdown, but the DOE handles the waste handling and storage forever. There it's your and my tax moneys.

Decommissioning and waste storage are two different problems. The decommissioning, in this case, is fully funded. Edison CEO Ted Craver said enough funds already have been collected from utility customers to pay for the project.

Yet waste storage is still part of the process, and Edison isn't paying for it. It's one of those accounting tricks people use to make nuclear power look economical.


In your opinion, at what point is a nuclear plant considered decommissioned?
 
2014-08-03 11:18:20 AM  
Tobin_Lam:

maxheck: Tobin_Lam: maxheck: b2theory:

Generally the decommissioning costs are already priced into the generating costs.

Except for where it's not. The company that runs the facility handles the shutdown, but the DOE handles the waste handling and storage forever. There it's your and my tax moneys.

Decommissioning and waste storage are two different problems. The decommissioning, in this case, is fully funded. Edison CEO Ted Craver said enough funds already have been collected from utility customers to pay for the project.

Yet waste storage is still part of the process, and Edison isn't paying for it. It's one of those accounting tricks people use to make nuclear power look economical.

In your opinion, at what point is a nuclear plant considered decommissioned?


Perhaps when you're no longer paying for it's operations? May be a while in the case of a nuclear plant, 1-10 years for the pool storage, then effectively forever for the dry-cask storage.

(shrug)

In your opine, Is a chemical plant decomissioned the moment they turn off the lights, or when they've finished cleaning up the grounds?
 
2014-08-03 11:25:02 AM  

maxheck: AngryDragon:

Two, the environmental nutjobs use the excuse of waste as the primary reason to eliminate nuclear power despite the fact that a modern design with reprocessing is something like 99% efficient.

Which is why France keeps shipping waste to Russia in order to get rid of it, despite their crowing about having a "closed system" since the 1970's.

*EVERY MEANS OF REPROCESSING HIGH LEVEL WASTE CREATES MANY TIMES AS MUCH LOW LEVEL WASTE* So many people on the internet seem to think you can just shovel the ashes of one processes into a different reactor and magic happens.

You're repeating a line of bullshiat. UREX and PUREX both create immense amounts of waste. At best you can be "technically correct" in saying that the high-level fuel gets recycled, but you have to ignore the literal tonnes of hot and corrosive fluorine compounds which have to be stored. Quit it. It's like the term "Clean Coal."


And un-clean coal is exactly is what is getting put back in service to replace the nuke plants..

Yes waste is a problem, but it can be mitigated with proper storage facilities like yucca mountain...

The very real problems with nuclear can be mitigated, the planet wide catastrophe that come from backing modern society with fossil fuels cannot...

With a serious, WW2 scale commitment to nuclear we could cut carbon emmisions by 75% in a decade.. Clean energy darlings like Germany are going in the opposite direction..
 
2014-08-03 11:32:18 AM  
Wait, I'm confused.  The headline says "Last nuclear reactors" so I have to ask, wtf happened to Diablo Canyon?  I thought they were still in the capable hands of that very responsible utility known as Pacific Gas and Electric.
 
2014-08-03 11:34:06 AM  

maxheck: Perhaps when you're no longer paying for it's operations?


You consider storage of the waste products by another entity to be part of the plant's operations?
 
2014-08-03 11:50:59 AM  
Tobin_Lam:

maxheck: Perhaps when you're no longer paying for it's operations?

You consider storage of the waste products by another entity to be part of the plant's operations?


Pretty sure their own management does. Is waste not part of their operations, or does it magically dissapear from the balance sheet? Electricity isn't their only product.
 
2014-08-03 12:05:27 PM  
Tobin_Lam:

maxheck: Perhaps when you're no longer paying for it's operations?

You consider storage of the waste products by another entity to be part of the plant's operations?


Maybe you're not familiar with how waste disposal works in the US...

By law, the power plant has to deal with the waste.

Also by law, the Department of Energy must *pay* for it since Yucca Mountain didn't go through.

So, power plant generates X tonnes of waste, hires a contractor such as General Electric to deal with it, then bills the DOE for the costs. The utility doesn't pay a cent, but you and I do. It's not like the costs just evaporate. Mince words all you like, but it is a very expensive issue that SOMEONE is paying for.
 
2014-08-03 12:24:11 PM  

maxheck: Tobin_Lam:

maxheck: Perhaps when you're no longer paying for it's operations?

You consider storage of the waste products by another entity to be part of the plant's operations?

Pretty sure their own management does. Is waste not part of their operations, or does it magically dissapear from the balance sheet? Electricity isn't their only product.


Let me put this another way. They tear down the plant and the only thing left is the waste and the cooling pipes in the ocean. All the contractors have left and there is no longer activity besides the DOE security for the waste storage. At what point in this process is the plant decommissioned?
 
2014-08-03 12:30:08 PM  
Tobin_Lam:

maxheck: Tobin_Lam:

maxheck: Perhaps when you're no longer paying for it's operations?

You consider storage of the waste products by another entity to be part of the plant's operations?

Pretty sure their own management does. Is waste not part of their operations, or does it magically dissapear from the balance sheet? Electricity isn't their only product.

Let me put this another way. They tear down the plant and the only thing left is the waste and the cooling pipes in the ocean. All the contractors have left and there is no longer activity besides the DOE security for the waste storage. At what point in this process is the plant decommissioned?


Not sure what you're asking... The site's still there, the contractors are still there, there's still millions of dollars going into it, it's not like you can repurpose the site, it's become a nuclear waste site rather than a power plant.

Where are you going with this?
 
2014-08-03 12:41:39 PM  
The utilities paid the DOE a small tax on every kW generated in order to pay for Yucca mountain or a similar facility. Since the DOE collected those taxes without providing the ultimate disposal facility, they are now liable for ongoing dry fuel storage costs at individual nuclear sites around the country.

Calling these places 'nuclear waste sites' is a bit hyperbolic, given that they're in robust sealed containers in robust concrete structures, surrounded by a security fence, which is also at such a distance to keep the boundary dose low.

The power plant structures themselves can be wiped from the map, and the site cleaned up sufficiently to repurpose. If you look at the old sites for Maine Yankee or Connecticut Yankee, you'll see those dry fuel storage facilities and little else.
 
Displayed 50 of 67 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report