# New and improved nuclear plants may cost more than expected. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 5, 2009, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880 "2009-06-05T22:35:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2009, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/41 "2009-06-06T03:00:05Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > Good. Me happy. We dance for joy now. Ooga-booga. In other words, you ARE anti-nuclear but won’t admit it. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2009, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/42 "2009-06-06T03:02:05Z")
[QUOTE=DSeid] Well it is more of a continuation of other long running discussions - in which some have placed nuclear power as the answer to our energy needs - and portrayed them as a technology that is able to be deployed rapidly and cost-effectively on a massive scale. The standardization inherent in this new generation of reactors was presented as key to why they would cost so much less than previous attempts. Bumping threads that old seemed poor form though … [/QUOTE] Yes, I remember the thread. I think I posted similar sentiments in that one as well (and probably a bunch of other threads on the same subject). 🙂 I don’t see anything in the article linked too in the OP that disproves or even seriously throws into doubt the possibility that nuclear power is not a viable alternative. I’ve still seen no convincing argument that there are ANY other technologies that could scale up to meet our current or future needs today…or in the next 20 years for that matter. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2009, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/43 "2009-06-06T03:02:55Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > In other words, you ARE anti-nuclear but won’t admit it. Only in the sense that you’re an evangelical Christian that hopes to one day proudly serve in the U.S. military but won’t admit it. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2009, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/44 "2009-06-06T03:08:39Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > Only in the sense that you’re an evangelical Christian that hopes to one day proudly serve in the U.S. military but won’t admit it. Please. You support a testing regime that really only exists to make nuclear unaffordable - that would make anything unaffordable - and I’m supposed to believe you support it ? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2009, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/45 "2009-06-06T03:09:39Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > Government contractors cut corners all the time. Read up about how many soldiers get shocked from shoddy electrical work in base facilities sometime. Design may be awesome, but some bean counter decides to use lower quality materials, and the whole equation is thrown out of whack. So you test, and re-test, etc to try to make things as safe as possible. > > Then again, testers/inspectors aren’t always strictly neitral about such things either. Shit happens. True. However, new reactor designs exist that are “inherently safe”. By this they mean the actual physics of the reactor preclude a China Syndrome or other meltdown. Even if the operators tried their level best to cause the reactor to go _foom_ they couldn’t do it. The safety does not lie in the engineers getting everything right and just hoping nothing goes wrong. The safety lies in the very physics of how the reactor works. The very laws of the universe are the safety net so, barring God changing fundamental physical laws such that 2+2 now equals 5 the reactor is safe. It self-limits itself. Now, someone could fly a plane into the reactor and toss radioactive junk into the air but that is not a fault of the reactor. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2009, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/46 "2009-06-06T03:16:44Z")
[QUOTE=gonzomax] Heres an article that says 3 Mi. Island was not contained. That there was a cover up and people got sick and died. It is not as safe as they are trying to make you think. There are billions of dollars to be made building and running them. [/QUOTE] It was all a vast conspiracy and cover up! Wow…I’m sure glad you brought this startling revelation to our attention, gonzo! And from such an unimpeachable source, too! Let’s see: > [@](#): > > They tell of how a stranger approached Randall Thompson in a grocery store parking lot in late April 1979 and warned him his life was at risk, leading the family to flee Pennsylvania. How they ended up in New Mexico working on a book about their experiences with the help of Joy’s brother Charles Busey, another nuclear Navy vet and a former worker at the Hatch nuclear power plant in Georgia. How one evening while driving home from the store Busey and Randall Thompson were run off the road, injuring Thompson and killing Busey. How a copy of the book manuscript they were working on was missing from the car’s trunk after the accident. These allegations were detailed in several newspaper accounts back in 1981. Damn the government! You know, they do this to the folks who witnessed alien bodies at the crash site in Roswell too! And don’t even get me started on the black helicopters and dismembered cows thingy! I’m glad that Thompson was stalwart enough to brave nearly certain death by bringing this vital story to our collective attention! I just wish others would be more like him. > [@](#): > > Anomalies abound > > That a lot of people died because of what happened at Three Mile Island, as the Thompsons claim, is definitely not part of the official story. In fact, the commercial nuclear power industry and the government insist that despite the meltdown of almost half of the uranium fuel at TMI, there were only minimal releases of radiation to the environment that harmed no one. ‘a lot of people died’…and yet, they managed to cover this up. Probably…by falsely making it seem like aliens abducted them! > [@](#): > > Those upbeat claims are based on the findings of the Kemeny Commission, a panel assembled by President Jimmy Carter in April 1979 to investigate the TMI disaster. Using release figures presented by Metropolitan Edison and the NRC, the commission calculated that in the month following the disaster there were releases of up to 13 million curies of so-called “noble gases” – considered relatively harmless – but only 13 to 17 curies of iodine-131, a radioactive form of the element that at even moderate exposures causes thyroid cancer. (A curie is a measure of radioactivity, with 1 curie equal to the activity of one gram of radium. For help understanding these and other terms, see the glossary at the end of this piece.) I’m sure the bodies were stacked like cord wood! That Carter…what a fink! blah blah blah. Unsubstantiated ‘studies’, anecdotal information, off the wall speculation, etc etc. Leaving aside the real crazies, even your own cite is claiming “Among the 450 people surveyed, there were 19 cancer deaths reported between 1980 and 1984 – more than seven times what would be expected statistically.” I’m seeing a bit of cherry picking possibilities here, but even so…19 deaths? Let’s expand that by 2 orders of magnitude and call it 1900 deaths (just for shits and giggles)…that’s not even close to the YEARLY death toll from coal fired plants. I’m sure this will be lost on you, Gonz old buddy, but perhaps someone who doesn’t read startling revelations from alternet and Facing South with studies by the Institute for Southern Studies (whatever the hell THAT is) will see the point. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2009, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/47 "2009-06-06T04:05:58Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Please. You support a testing regime that really only exists to make nuclear unaffordable - that would make anything unaffordable - and I’m supposed to believe you support it ? Nukey-juice good. Nukey-juice make cold box cold. Oak put nom-nom in cold box so it not rot. Nukey-juice make hot box hot. Oak cook nom-nom on hot box. Eat em up. Yum! Nukey-juice can go BOOM! BOOM is bad. Please to take shiny rock, make testings so nukey-juice not go BOOM. YAY for Nukey-juice. BOO for BOOM. YAY for testing nukey-juice. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2009, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/48 "2009-06-06T04:11:25Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > True. > Now, someone could fly a plane into the reactor and toss radioactive junk into the air but that is not a fault of the reactor. And that’s why I’m saying test that shit. Test it for what you think will happen. Test it for what you think could possibly happen. Test if for what you think probably won’t happen, but would really suck if it did. Test it for what might happen if the Kitten Sausage Jihad drives a plane into it. Mass production is groovy for things that won’t turn a tri-county area into a radioactive wasteland (on a bad thing happening) until the Saints win a Super Bowl or the next ice age, whichever comes first. Nuke plants are not in that category. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2009, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/49 "2009-06-06T04:14:46Z")
In other words, you indeed oppose nuclear power. You want to impose an endless series of tests for impossibilities, until any would-be builders give up and go away. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2009, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/50 "2009-06-06T04:17:31Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > The movie was named after the syndrome of a serious meltdown that theoretically could melt down through the bottom of the plant and come through to China. There is no plausible reason to believe that once it reached the center of the earth’s gravity pull that it would go anywhere else. And it is highly doubtful it would even get that far. > [@xtisme](#): > > That said, how much ‘massive death/destruction’ has nuclear power caused in it’s entire history? Let’s TRY for a bit of perspective here. Even if we had a Chernobyl a year we couldn’t possibly be doing as much damage or causing as many deaths as we do currently with coal. > > -XT And yet you don’t move to any of that really cheap land near Chernobyl. I can’t imagine why not with that attitude. I live near one of the world’s largest wind farms. I can see it from the top of a hill 100 yards from my house. (The wind farm in Solano California). I hope that it gets a lot bigger. I wouldn’t mind it at all being closer. And it is a lot cheaper to produce energy per kilowatt hour than nuclear. After 40 years it will not need to be closed until a method is invented to clean it up. I have no opposition to the government spending a trillion on a giant power grid and a super safe very large nuclear reservation to power the whole country, but with wind and solar being so much cheaper and easier and modular, what is the f’in point? Wind and solar (both fusion powered at its source I might at) always blowing and shining somewhere for less, why not. Oh, and wave/surf power (gravity powered!) also becoming cheap, why not that? Please enlighten me on why some people have an obsession with ridiculously expensive and more dangerous nuclear. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2009, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/51 "2009-06-06T04:20:33Z")
Look, the fact is that we can very rapidly (~20 years) replace most if not all the world’s power needs with nuclear is needed. And we can do that using current technology in a manner that will have far, far fewer health and environmental risks than any current power regime. So the question I put to you Oakminster is why you feel we need to spend any more money doing tests? ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2009, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/52 "2009-06-06T04:21:01Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > In other words, you indeed oppose nuclear power. You want to impose an endless series of tests for impossibilities, until any would-be builders give up and go away. No. Wrong. Not correct. False. And, good sir, I would very much appreciate it if you’d stop putting words in my mouth. Pretty please with sugar on top. Thank you ever so much. Have a blessed day. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2009, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/53 "2009-06-06T04:21:21Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > I live near one of the world’s largest wind farms. I can see it from the top of a hill 100 yards from my house. (The wind farm in Solano California). I hope that it gets a lot bigger. I wouldn’t mind it at all being closer. And it is a lot cheaper to produce energy per kilowatt hour than nuclear. After 40 years it will not need to be closed until a method is invented to clean it up. > > I have no opposition to the government spending a trillion on a giant power grid and a super safe very large nuclear reservation to power the whole country, but with wind and solar being so much cheaper and easier and modular, what is the f’in point? Wind and solar (both fusion powered at its source I might at) always blowing and shining somewhere for less, why not. Oh, and wave/surf power (gravity powered!) also becoming cheap, why not that? > > Please enlighten me on why some people have an obsession with ridiculously expensive and more dangerous nuclear. Because nuclear is cheaper ( barring all the obstructionism ), less destructive ( exactly how many states do you plan to level to put your solar panels on ? ), and practical. Wind, solar and so forth aren’t up to the job, and are more expensive. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2009, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/54 "2009-06-06T04:24:35Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > No. Wrong. Not correct. False. > > And, good sir, I would very much appreciate it if you’d stop putting words in my mouth. Pretty please with sugar on top. Thank you ever so much. Have a blessed day. When you make inconsistent statements, I have to guess which you really mean. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2009, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/55 "2009-06-06T04:25:54Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Look, the fact is that we can very rapidly (~20 years) replace most if not all the world’s power needs with nuclear is needed. And we can do that using current technology in a manner that will have far, far fewer health and environmental risks than any current power regime. > > So the question I put to you Oakminster is why you feel we need to spend any more money doing tests? Because each plant is unique. Even working from the same design, there will be differences in materials, workmanship, local conditions, security, etc. Every plant has to be tested as it is built, and during it’s operational life. We do this now with existing plants. Things break. People screw up operating instructions. Idiots make Ryder Trucks into fertilizer bombs and drive them into buildings. Build nuke plants…but accept the cost of proper testing. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2009, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/56 "2009-06-06T04:29:20Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > When you make inconsistent statements, I have to guess which you really mean. I have not made inconsistent statements. I say test nuke plants, and don’t do a half-assed job about it. Accept the cost of doing the job right. I do not say don’t build nukes. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2009, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/57 "2009-06-06T04:34:34Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > I have not made inconsistent statements. I say test nuke plants, and don’t do a half-assed job about it. Accept the cost of doing the job right. I do not say don’t build nukes. You want ridiculous tests, tests for impossibilities. So many tests that nothing could be made economically under such a regimen of tests, all using as an excuse a wildly exaggerated idea of how dangerous nuclear power is. If you want to make building them impossible, you don’t want them. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2009, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/58 "2009-06-06T04:42:14Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > And yet you don’t move to any of that really cheap land near Chernobyl. I can’t imagine why not with that attitude. The same reason that I don’t want to live near a coal mine, or near the factories that produce your wind turbines. > [@](#): > > I live near one of the world’s largest wind farms. I can see it from the top of a hill 100 yards from my house. So you don’t live near the factory that produces the turbines? I can’t imagine why not with that attitude. > [@](#): > > And it is a lot cheaper to produce energy per kilowatt hour than nuclear. Also totally unreliable and totally unable to meet more than a tiny fraction of energy needs. This is the type of Disneyland comparison that some people always seem to feel the need to engage in. Ooooh look, I’ve got a car that runs off my own feel of self-superiority .It produces zero carbon emissions Let’s replace all the ambulances with these vehicles. Sure it has a to speed of 20mph and only works in months with an “A” in the name, but it has zero carbon emmisions. > [@](#): > > After 40 years it will not need to be closed until a method is invented to clean it up. No, it would need to be closed this year if it wans;t being propped up by nuclear and coal power stations. You do realise that, right? That wind power stations would never earn enough revenue to be available if they weren’t connected to a grid primarily supplied by nuclear and coal? Nobody is going to pay more than a pittance for a power supply that only work 9 out of every 10 hours. > [@](#): > > … but with wind and solar being so much cheaper and easier and modular They aren’t cheaper. They might produce some power more cheaply once they are constructed, but they definitely do not generate comparable to nuclear or coal more cheaply than nuclear or coal. They are not easier. They are in fact very restricted in terms of where they can be set up, and if you want power more than 9 out of every 10 hours they require a monstrous support system. In no way can they be said to be easier than nuclear. And they are definitely not modular. > [@](#): > > ..what is the f’in point? To generate the amount and reliability of power needed to keep the country operational. I haven’t heard even the most ardent supporters suggest that wind and solar has any chance whatsoever of acting as a substitute for coal, now or in the future. Nuclear can be as substitute right now. > [@](#): > > Wind and solar (both fusion powered at its source I might at) always blowing and shining somewhere for less, why not. Because they can not generate the amount and reliability of power needed to keep the country operational. I don’t know where you got the idea that they possibly could. Look, Second Stone, I’m not opposed to renewables. I think we should be making a lot more use of them. But they are only feasible as one of two scenarios. They can be used as to a reliable centralised power source such as coal or nuclear. Using solar for example to meet peak demand during daylight hours and sunny days, with a nuclear backup for night times and extended overcast periods. Or they can be coupled with massive hydro or similar schemes that provide the ability to store excess power. That has massive environmental consequences, like requiring us to dam every river in North America. It is also prohibitively expensive. What they an not do is provide us a cheap alternative to the reliable, environmentally friendly, safe power sources such as coal and nuclear. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2009, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/59 "2009-06-06T04:42:24Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > You want ridiculous tests, tests for impossibilities. So many tests that nothing could be made economically under such a regimen of tests, all using as an excuse a wildly exaggerated idea of how dangerous nuclear power is. If you want to make building them impossible, you don’t want them. Bullshit. I have not said that any more than you’ve said to slap the goddamn things together with duct tape. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2009, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/60 "2009-06-06T04:44:07Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > Because each plant is unique. Even working from the same design, there will be differences in materials, workmanship, local conditions, security, etc. Every plant has to be tested as it is built, and during it’s operational life. We do this now with existing plants. Things break. People screw up operating instructions. Idiots make Ryder Trucks into fertilizer bombs and drive them into buildings. > > Build nuke plants…but accept the cost of proper testing. Many words, but you haven’t even attempted to answer my question. The fact is that we can very rapidly (~20 years) replace most if not all the world’s power needs with nuclear is needed. And we can do that using current technology in a manner that will have far, far fewer health and environmental risks than any current power regime. So the question I put to you Oakminster is why you feel we need to spend any more money doing tests? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880.md?page=4)