âoeThe most reliable estimate of the cost of decommissioning [a nuclear power plant] is 10-15 percent of the construction cost, contrary to some highly inflated estimates
How misguided that view seems now, with the advantage of decades of experience. The Yankee Nuclear Power Station in Rowe, Massachusetts, took 15 years to decommissionâ"or five times longer than was needed to build it. And decommissioning the plantâ"constructed early in the 1960s for $39 millionâ"cost $608 million. The plantâ(TM)s spent fuel rods are still stored in a facility on-site, because there is no permanent disposal repository to put them in.
Look, it's late and I'm tired but I've had this exact conversation many many times. I'm not just "spewing" out random crap.
That plant was suppose to cost 6 million to decommission. Adjusting for inflation, it would have cost 39million (the same as it cost to build it but with inflated dollars so really just a nice coincidence). That's $560 million more than estimated and paid for in utility bills along the way.
The company wants to try out the idea for the first time on the northwest coast of England, at the notorious nuclear dumping ground at Sellafield, which holds the world's largest stock of civilian plutonium. At close to 120 tons, it stores more plutonium from reactors than the U.S. and Russia combined.
While most of the world's civilian plutonium waste is still trapped inside highly radioactive spent fuel, much of that British plutonium is in the form of plutonium dioxide powder. It has been extracted from spent fuel with the intention of using it to power an earlier generation of fast reactors that were never built. This makes it much more vulnerable to theft and use in nuclear weapons than plutonium still held inside spent fuel, as most of the U.S. stockpile is.
By 2025, Germany is to have no more than 45 percent renewable power. The U.S. should too.
It has a quarter of our population but total US GDP is 16.77 trillion dollars while germany is only 3.77 trillion dollars.
We can do this and almost permanently cap the price of coal and oil.
Really we are quibbling.
I think we both agree a smart mix of alternative energy, nuclear energy, and even coal makes sense for the near future (say 2045) and that increasing the percentage of alternative energy will reduce consumption and prices of fossil fuels.
I showed that breeder reactors produce plutonium dioxide which must be secured against terrorists and backed that up with the actual experience of a breeder reactor in England.
I also showed that decommissioning costs for nuclear plants are underestimated by over and order of magnitude.