Supposedly, a considerable percentage of the time and cost that goes into creating new power plants is spent in courts fighting obstructionist suits.
About what percentage?
Our local plant was up to get their license extended for 20 years. Some local groups fought it for a short time but they gave up because they said they didn’t have enough money to really fight against the extension. They also said that no matter what they did the license would likely be extended anyway so it was not worth their time to pay for the fight. When the plant opened in 86 there was also some people who fought it but that was also short lived.
I can’t offer an exact number.
But I was something of a spectator for the obstructionism that went along with the Seabrook nuclear power plant in NH. Originally scheduled to go online in the late seventies/early eighties, it didn’t come online until 1990. The last hurdle I recall was when then governor Dukakis blocked the final approval paperwork, because he believed that no disaster plan was going to be adequate. Per the linked Wikipedia article, one of the bigger investors in the plant went bankrupt because of the delays. I know that our local power company, Hudson Power and Light, was heavily invested in the plant, and because of that our rates grew significantly as they tried to keep servicing the debts incurred from contracting the plant, without any revenues associated with it.
He even had an ad during his presidential campaign that boasted of that.
Well even if you ignore the cost of high powered lawyers, scientist, engineers, environmental impact statements, and greasing some politicans palms, just the cost of delay itself can get expensive IMO.
Lets say you take out hundreds of millions or even billions in loans (or someone invests) to build the thing.
People like to think most businesses RAKE in money. In reality, they just barely squeek by.
So, you are going to build this plant, operated it for decades, paying off the loan with a small profit margin, and giving the loaners/invests a modest return.
If the delays start anytime AFTER the money has been tied up, JUST the fact that your income stream to pay off the loan is delayed can cost you big money.
Maybe a poster here with some experience in big money loans, returns, and cost to businesses in general when income is delayed but loan payments are due could run some example numbers for us?
Assuming the answer to the question come up, a good sub-question is “how is this answer different from other major projects?”.
IOW, If a nuke plant spends $X and time Y fighting obstructors, how much would a coal fired powerplant or wind-farm or oil refinery or chemical plant spend in dollars & time to get permission to build on the same site?
LSLGuy, one of the problems for that comparison is that the examples for the nuke plants are mostly going to be for the generation of plants that were to come online at the same general time as Seabrook. I don’t know exactly, anymore, but ISTR that no new nuclear power plants in the US have been contracted since TMI. Which means the most recent examples are things like Seabrook. From what I recall, the public obstructionism against nuclear plants became much harder in the wake of TMI, and caused unprecedented delay. And the costs from those delays were completely unforeseen.
I also seem to remember that before contracting to build a nuclear power plant the company involved has to put into escrow funds for clean up, and decomissioning the plant. IF this is true, it would add considerably to the initial outlay, compared to the other types of facilities you’ve mentioned.
The wind farm projects I’ve seen being proposed locally are all looking at a completion date no more than three years out. Which is five times the delay between contract and power generation for Seabrook.
New nuclear plants are planned in the US. Our local utility Progress Energy has applied for licenses to add 2 more reactors to our local plant , they won’t operate before 2018. The original plan for this site was 4 reactors , then it was reduced to 2 and they only built 1 so far.
I take it you mean one fifth the delay.
Or in other words Wind farms 3 years.
Seabrook 15 years?
Look ma, that wind out there is really growing nice and strong this year.
Yeah pa, gonna be a bummer crop. Can feel in the old bones.
The really sick thing: nucear power is clean and safe, and does not create CO2 (the greenhouse gas that the global warming crazies keep screaming about). And, the “Clamshell Alliance” (he group that obstructed the licinsing of the Seabrook nuclear plant: most of their members were welfare recipients.
So you say.
As has been done ad infinitum in GD, there are serious issues with Nukes, not the least of which is waste management. Nuke power may be relatively safe as measured by deaths / MWH generated, but their failure modes have the potential to be spectacularly catastrophic and expensive.
I’m a nuclear power booster, myself. But you’re misstating things to claim that nuclear power does not create CO[sub]2[/sub]. The operation of the plant doesn’t generate greenhouse gasses, the mining and manufacture of the fuel, however, does. And as bad as spent fuel can be, some of the waste products from the various refining processes are even worse.
There are a number of perfectly legitimate reasons that I can see why people might view nuclear power askance, or oppose it from the POV of sound environmental reasoning.
The problem from a public policy point shouldn’t be expressed as nuclear power is the cleanest power option available, just that it’s got a number of benefits over coal power, and is cheaper at the moment than large scale solar or wind power.
When (and if) that last clause changes, my support for nuclear power will also likely change.
Yeah. Oops.
Apparently not enouhg, since modern nuclear plants can and are built in such a manner than no catastrophic failure mode can happen. And watse, while an issue, is not some insoluble problem. It’s simply that some people dont’ want the problem solved; they want it kept alive as a bludgeon, so they oppose any actual solution.
If you believe that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
I have studied failure modes of complicated systems - believe me when I say that there is not fail-proof nuclear power plant currently operating, and although the likelihood of of a complete core meltdown (or other disaster) is remote in current designs, there are still failures that can release lethal amounts of radioactivity, and cost billions to clean up.
The delay in operating Diablo Canyon in Calif I believe was 20 years.
Waste is an unsolvable problem. It stays radioactive essentially forever. What container stays together forever?
How about a pebble bed reactor?
I saw a show on PBS one time about NPPs. They showed clips from the China Syndrome and cut in film from the German pebble bed reactor where they cut off the cooling gas on purpose.
CS: People running around going crazy
German control room: guy kicked back drinking coffee watching the needle on the temp gauge go up
CS: Oh my god the temp is still going up, it’s going to melt to China (or words to that effect)
GCR: temp gauge stops rising and guy keeps drinking coffee.
Seems pretty safe to me.
Maybe.
How many currently operating commercial pebble bed reactors are there?
Space, eventually. For now it can just be stored.
Valete,
Vox Imperatoris
Ughh!
If it last forever, it aint radioactive forever! Never the twain shall meet.