Don’t feel too bad, I kept doing the calcs and getting numbers that just didnt sound right either.
The I realized the standard unit for electricity is kilowatt HOURS, not kilowatt minutes :smack:
Also, even though 50 billion is an acceptable fraction, IMO the storage could have been done, or at least be done next time, for significantly less than that.
Just noted you are going just from 1994. So, a decent estimate for the total amount of generated electricity from all the nuclear reactors would be more like 2 or 3 times that amount.
So, its 50 billion out of more like 2 to 4 trillion dollars of generated electricity, and perhaps even a bit more.
A nitpick.
The linked article actually estimates 90 billion until it is sealed up for the Yucca part of dealing with the waste alone. So about 8% of charges - using the sale price of $0.11 - but the question was of the cost wasn’t it? And I thought that the cost was actually more like $0.06/kWh. So actual cost of using Yucca is about 16% of the cost. (Or less agaon based on billfish’s point about how much may actually have been produced) Yeah that’s also still a fraction but a bit larger of one. Especially since the charge to cover the waste disposal on the bill is only a $0.001/kWh which obviously does not reflect even close to that cost.
So … what’s the point? Just that while nuclear is still likely to be a competitive solution pricing in the carbon even adequately charging for its waste disposal as well, fair competition better charge for the true cost of that disposal too.
A gal has to admit her limitations, and in this case I’m afraid that I know very little about the details of that subject.
Since I was looking at 1994-2007 inclusive, I picked a higher rate than a long-term historical rate. However, I didn’t look up a rate, I assumed one. Looking in detail at rates, I see that from 1994-2007, the average of residential, commercial, industrial, and transportation electric rates ranges from 0.0664 (1999) to a high of 9.13 (2007). If you wanted to be really super-accurate, you would want to get the net generation figures for each year and calculate a weighted average. Or, if not maybe assume something like 0.075? (I feel like I’m at an auction 
).
Yucca does not solve the storage problem. We can fill it the first day. Then we need another one. How easy has that proven to be. No body wants it is their area. It costs a ton and the builders keep robbing us.
60 years of operation. The builders got an extension. Of course do not sweat it, the companies have our best interests in mind. The public welfare is far more important than profits.
Yeah, and coal plants are being run by Catholic nuns not interested in profits and working for pennies on the dollar :rolleyes:
And clean coal is so clean even the habits don’t get dirty!
So, you make ONE garbage dump. It gets filled up. So, therefore garbage is bad, we can make no more garbage or garbage dumps?
Do you know how that sounds?
Good grief. Even this over the top, studied to hell and back for decades waste site only adds a FRACTION to the overall cost of nuclear power.
Design and build a house. Looks good. Its ready. Oops, not sure about this. Then never move in. Keep studying the design and redesigning over and over for decades. Keep having interior decorators looking at it. Keep changing and repainting the rooms different colors. But don’t actually move in for decades, forcing you to also absorb the cost of living somewhere else in addition to paying for all this nth degree second guessing and overkill analysis. Have neighbors sueing your ass all the whole time trying to keep you from moving in, causing massive legal bills. Ohh and don’t foget to keep paying the property tax, have the lawn mowed, and keep the power on so the house doesnt go to shit. Thats going to be one absurdly costly house. Way more than it reasonably should have been. Thats whats happened to Yucca Mountain. And even THEN, the cost isnt a show stopper for nuclear power.
Again, nuclear waste disposal is a FRACTION of the total cost of nuclear power. On the other hand, CO2 capture and storage makes coal power 2 to 3 TIMES more expensive, if not more according to one poster who seems to know this stuff. We are not even sure its even PRACTICAL to do. We are not even sure which out of many possible ways we should capture it. The volume of the captured CO2 will make the volume of the nuclear waste look like a drop in the bucket in comparision. I’d bet my soul that its much more likely that SOLID nuclear waste is going to stay put for thousands of years in a desert than giga (penta?) tons of high pressure GAS is gonna stay put pumped into the ground.
Any cheap sure fired way you come up with for storing that much C02 cheaply and with a high certaintly can ALSO be applied to nuclear waste.
And we havent even considered all that nasty solid coal ash, or the other toxins coal power plants spew into the air, even the properly working ones.
Do you even realize that 1/X is smaller than X when X is greater than one?
billfish finding a series of Yucca Mountains is a bigger and more daunting of a proposition than siting new garbage dumps, and even those can sometimes be dicey. Each one will be harder to site than the last as the least poor and least unpopular choices get done first. We do not have a whole lot of Yucca Mountain sites and the next one would likely be much more costly than this one to make up for its less ideal aspects. I am sure that you are right, that even fairly pricing for future disposal costs will leave nuclear very competitive with coal after carbon is priced, but those actual costs do need to be part of the fair competition between all possible power generation options in each specific locale and circumstance.
Una you have limits? Who knew? 
Oh well.
And sure, $0.075 sounds fine but that is still of charges, not costs, right?
Those are end-customer charges, yes.
Then whats the argument then? That we (nuclear) don’t have cost nailed down to the very penny?
CO2 free coal power (much less pollution free coal) can’t tell you the real cost within a factor of 2 or more. Or if you can even DO it. And solar, wind, etc is as bad or worse.
Nearly every thing you people bring up as a reason we can’t do nuclear is WORSE for virtually EVERYTHING else.
Hundreds of nuclear plants have been built around the world and operated for decades. We not only have the theory, we have a decent handle on the practice and real world costs.
Well it depends on who you are arguing with I guess.
On one extreme we have a very few who are no-nuke period. They still do not trust it no matter what facts they are presented with.
On the other extreme we have those who want nuclear supported by the Feds with massive loan guarantees and substantially underwriting the disposal costs to the end of building a huge number of new nuclear plants in short order as the solution to all that ails us (like how McCain called for doing what it takes to get 45 new plants up between now and 2030).
And then you have those of us who argue against both of those extremes.
Who don’t know and who do not believe that anyone else knows right now what technology will have the biggest bang for the buck to reduce life-cycle CO2 output. We just want to fund the research for a variety of options that have potential and to price the carbon and let the market sort it out from there with each option paying for what they really cost life-cycle carbon included. In that analysis we will need to include some fudge factor for handling nuclear waste because we really do not the option for it yet. It will be more than the calculations that have been presented in the future and those numbers have been mainly subsidized by the Feds/us rather than that inconsequential disposal fee. (Odds are though even doubling it that nuclear will still be cost effective with a reasonable growth rate of new plants.)
So on that spectrum where are you and who do you want to argue with?
Does anyone actually have data on the capacity of Yucca? If we moved all our intermediate storage waste there, how much of its capacity would be used? How many more years worth of waste can it store? It seems to be taken for granted that it’d already be filled the instance we started using it.
I don’t think anyone in this thread on the pro-nuclear side has had any extreme view. It sounds like you’re trying to characterize either side as extreme so you can invoke the fallacy of the middle ground. Any extremism has come from the anti-nuke side. The arguments seem to range from ‘screw you guys, not in my back yard’ to ‘nuclear is RADIOACTIVE! That creates giant ants that’ll crush cities and stuff! Haven’t you seen any movies?’
Consider this. Very rough numbers.
They are something like a 1000 feet below the surface. Many, many feet above the water table.
I suspect if they wanted, they could easily expand storage by a factor of 10, if not WAY more, by going up some, down some, and out some, and still have all that waste be pretty damn “secure”. I doubt they have hollowed out the whole mountain from top to bottom and side to side.
And out of the thousands (tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands?)of square miles that are in that “basin” area, you can’t tell me its the only “mountain” out there thats remotely workable geology and otherwise. Nevermind other basins or other workable storage places around the USA or world.
Also, consider this. The dead sea scrolls. Pieces of PAPER mind you. Stored in state of the art clay jars. In “caves” that were more like mud huts than a respectable cave. Those things lasted 2000 years.
The crap created in situ by the Oklo natural nuclear reactor (with WATER around mind you) basically stayed put for eons and eons.
The funny thing is, not so many generations from now, folks are probably going to be digging up all that nuclear waste anyways because its so damn valuable. energy wise.
Multiple sources, including the cited WSJ article and the interview with Steven Chu, state that what we already have would fill it up.
My discussion of the extremes was not meant to imply posters in this thread, just the argument in more general in the public sphere. And that certainly I am not arguing against nukes, just against subsidizing them unfairly, our taking on the risk of the investments, and unreasonable expectations of how may can be brought on line how quickly. I apologize if that was unclear.
Would you endorse the POV that I’ve tried to articulate for a fair competition that includes life-cycle CO2 and true best guess disposal costs without preferential subsidies by way of loan guarantees, etc., and without trying to choose the winners in advance? (Throwing in a streamlined approval process for new plants of standard design and maybe even a panel that can toss out frivolous lawsuits.)
so, your solution is to do nothing, because you arent a 100 percent sure either way?
Yeah, that sounds reasonably. I’m generally against subsidizing things simply because someone thinks it’s the right thing to do - ethanol subsidies, for example, are counterproductive and piss me off.
But I don’t have a problem with factoring in externalities - it’s ridiculous that nuclear, who can contain their wastes entirely, actually pays more for waste disposal than coal which just dumps it into the public airspace.
And busywork lawsuits should be more easily dismissed. I get the impression that lots of people filing unwinnable lawsuits delays and raises the costs, discouraging new plants. That could be part of the streamlining process.
I suspect that if you level the playing field, nuclear will become dominant but there will still be some room for already running coal plants and newly developing technologies.
Honestly, to me it seems that nuclear power is one of the most amazing discoveries of our civilization - contained waste, near-term inexhaustible fuel supply, no CO2, very safe with modern designs - and instead of embracing this miracle technology, it’s reviled because of an irrational fear of the word nuclear.
SenorBeef we seem to agree and have no argument.
billfish, no, that is not my position. Try again.
The limit seems more statutory than physical. Of course that moron Reid is against it.
However -
Cite. So we could almost double its capacity at a stroke by telling Reid and the rest of the idiots opposing this to go pound sand.
Regards,
Shodan
Back to the issue of finding space for solar collectors … I found this today.
Going to the company website you get these claims made:
Quite a concept. No price given and the numbers that they use seem a bit of a funny way to do the math so no way to know how practical of an idea it is, but is there enough unexploited space for solar? Uh yeah. How will building integrated photvoltaics, road integrated photovoltaics, thermal solar farms, etc etc etc compete price wise with nuclear and many other competing ideas?? How fast could each be rolled out as current aged nuclear plants and the dirtiest coal plants go off-line? I do not know. But I look forward to seeing what the market shows us!
Shodan, very nice cite! In the absence of any additional conflicting information I am convinced by it (and following to the actual report) that Yucca can actually hold much more if the statutes were changed to make it so.
Color me extremely skeptical that any road surface could see normal use and still be fit for solar power generation after any significant amount of time. How often are they planning on replacing these road panels, every six months? A year?