So what's really blocking nuclear power? Cost? Red tape? Fear of lawsuits? Bad P.R.? What?

[levdrakon]

@Sage_Rat

No…I’m taking the total operating costs and calling it the operating costs because when one compares the cost of things, you always compare the total costs, not some arbitrary subsection of costs that strike your fancy at that particular moment in time.

When a person pays his electricity bill, he doesn’t care what percentage went into which slice of the pie. He just wants his electricity bill as low as it goes. His bill is the complete sum of 100% of the pie, and the power generation source that is most economical for him is the one with the cheapest total pie. Pointing out that a particular slice of coal power is smaller than nuclear is entirely extraneous. It’s not a salad bar. You don’t get to choose to take the cheap parts of coal and the cheap parts of nuclear and combine them together for a newer and mightier whole. You only have the two choices of the total cost of nuclear or the total cost of coal.

If you’re looking for total costs, then that chart of operating costs isn’t what you want. It’s total overnight cost, plus interest payments you want. Also rather than only looking at historical data, you’ll want to take into account new nuclear plants and upgraded and/or new coal plants. I’ve seen quite a bit of variance in cost, for instance from Wiki’s economics of new nuclear power

Recent construction cost estimates
2007 estimates have considerable uncertainty in overnight cost, and vary widely from $2,950/kWe (overnight cost) to a Moody’s Investors Service conservative estimate of between $5,000 and $6,000/kWe (final or “all-in” cost).[13]

However, commodity prices shot up in 2008, and so all types of plants will be more expensive than previously calculated[14] In June 2008 Moody’s estimated that the cost of installing new nuclear capacity in the U.S. might possibly exceed $7,000/kWe in final cost

[Chronos]

Quoth The Second Stone:

Without the socialization of the raising of the capital and socialization of the risk, like limiting liability such as in the gulf oil spill, and socializing the storage of the waste and privatizing all of the profits, nuclear designs have gone nowhere. Coal, wind and solar and oil are just lots cheaper and more competitive. Even with all of those subsidies, nuclear is still not an attractive risk for people to invest their time and money into. Except for Montgomery Burns.

Coal is even less profitable, if you take out socializing the storage of the waste. You can’t say it’s unfair to subsidize nuclear in that way, but then turn around and say it’s OK for fossil fuels.

[Sage_Rat]

@levdrakon

If you’re looking for total costs, then that chart of operating costs isn’t what you want. It’s total overnight cost, plus interest payments you want. Also rather than only looking at historical data, you’ll want to take into account new nuclear plants and upgraded and/or new coal plants. I’ve seen quite a bit of variance in cost, for instance from Wiki’s economics of new nuclear power

That’s a construction cost, not an operating cost. While I agree that it gets added to the total bill that the home owner sees, my argument was that construction costs can be shrunk appreciably. If you solve for that, then the lower operating cost has nuclear win through over coal.

Nuclear plants in Europe seem to cost between 3 and 4 billion Euros ($3.8-$5.1 billion), whereas American plants according to Wikipedia are in the $10-15 billion range. If you can cut construction costs by 50% by making the process smooth and preventing NIMBYist plays, the cheaper cost of operation becomes a pretty important factor.

The point is that we can decrease the cost of nuclear to be at least equivalent. Coal is what it is.

[The_Second_Stone]

@Chronos

Quoth The Second Stone:Coal is even less profitable, if you take out socializing the storage of the waste. You can’t say it’s unfair to subsidize nuclear in that way, but then turn around and say it’s OK for fossil fuels.

How is the waste of coal socialized? And even though I didn’t say that it’s okay to socialize the storage of fossil fuels, or anything like it, I certainly am able to say it if I wanted to.

[Magiver]

@gonzomax

Are there a bunch of half built reactors sitting around ?

the William H. Zimmer Power Plant in Ohio was converted coal because the initial work was poorly done and the cost to fix it exceeded the cost of the conversion.

[BrainGlutton]

@The_Second_Stone

How is the waste of coal socialized?

AFAIK, the “waste” of coal is only the CO2 burning it pumps into the atmosphere. Which then becomes everybody’s problem, therefore, socialized.

[XT]

@DSeid

Yet the Finnish nuclear power plant project has managed to skyrocket into huge cost overruns with the only lawsuits coming from the plant builder.

Just skimming through your linked article, however, many of the cost over runs seem to be due to changes in the Euro, coupled with delays that the company claims to be due at least in part from failures or delays in the approval of safety inspections and such…which seem to be the exact tactic used by environmental groups in the US to delay and increase the cost of a nuclear plant to the point where the company involved gives up or goes broke. I don’t really know that much about the problems with this plant in Finland, obviously, and I don’t have the time or energy tonight to look it up…it could be corruption with the company building it (it’s French owned, so gods know what could be really going on there). It could be differences in standards between France and where the plant is being built. Could be (as the article says), the Euro and how it’s decline has effected long term projects and the costs of the associated parts. But it COULD be anti-nuclear groups using the process to deliberately sabotage the project as well…or some combination of the above.

-XT

[billfish678]

@BrainGlutton

AFAIK, the “waste” of coal is only the CO2 burning it pumps into the atmosphere. Which then becomes everybody’s problem, therefore, socialized.

And for that matter, “they” don’t require coal ash (and there is a shitload of that too) to be disposed of in billion dollar storage facilities designed to last nearly forever either.

[robby]

@The_Second_Stone

How is the waste of coal socialized?

@BrainGlutton

AFAIK, the “waste” of coal is only the CO2 burning it pumps into the atmosphere. Which then becomes everybody’s problem, therefore, socialized.

There’s more than the carbon dioxide–there’s also the socialized costs of all of the emitted sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides (which causes acid rain that damages forests, lakes, and buildings); airborne particulates (which contribute to respiratory illnesses and haze), carbon monoxide, and heavy metals (including mercury, arsenic, lead, cadmium, etc.) that come from coal plants.

Cite:

Coal and Air Pollution

And that’s just the air pollution part of burning the coal. Nobody has even mentioned the socialized costs of mining the coal.

[Dinsdale]

At the risk of being too superficial, I believe too many very large and wealthy interests benefit from current (fossil fuel) technology. They are largely subsidized, and not required to cover all of their externalities. And they have HUGE investments in the status quo. So there is precious little incentive for them to abandon an existing situation from which they profit before wringing every last cent out of it.

Make no mistake - once the market is forced to bear the true and full cost of fossil fuels, we’ll see thse same actors being the biggest supporters of “alternative” fuels.