# Still support nuke power plants? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 14, 2011, 11:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647 "2011-03-14T11:56:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 53
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2011, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/1041 "2011-03-25T05:36:40Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > What straw man? > > From the cite you provided (bolding mine): > > You are suggesting with your cite that wind power can provide the power needed for the US. > > You have not answered my problems with that claim. > > Land use was just one issue I raised (actually **matt** did but I agreed). > > You addressed nothing else. > > I am not saying there is no room for wind power (or solar). > > I am saying we need an answer to coal which provides the bulk of our power generation. > > Wind cannot come remotely close to doing it short of an epic and ruinous effort. Let us do some refreshing. You had stated > [@WAM](#): > > I absolutely want to see efforts continue in renewable and “green” energy. > > Thing is, from my reading, few if any of those can possibly account for a sizable percentage of energy production required in the US. Which I disputed by providing a cite which documented the ampleness of the resource. My thesis then and now has remained > [@me](#): > > My bottom line is that diversity in our power generation mix makes the most sense. The goal is to have the coal plants retired beginning with oldest and dirtiest and to replace them with less dirty alternatives. I stated then and still maintain > [@me](#): > > Get up to 10%, retiring maybe the dirtiest 20% of our coal plants, and then we’ll worry about how much higher we can go. And > [@me](#): > > Wind isn’t right everywhere. Solar isn’t either. But we should use it, and other renewables, as much as we can, both in utility scale and distributed applications, build what nuclear we reasonably and cost-effectively can (which might keep up with what ages out), use storage technologies to maximize our use of the cleaner generation sources 24/7, and use natural gas to fill in the rest as we retire the oldest coal plants as fast as we can. There is plenty of wind exploitable; its ongoing costs, including maintenance, are tiny, despite what you imagine ([$8/MWh](http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy07osti/41435.pdf)), and (same DOE source) “wind has consistently been priced at or below the low end of the wholesale power price range.” Still integration into a grid is, a that cite states, “manageable but not costless” and our poor transmission infrastructure makes its expansion trickier. Once again, wind is not _the_ answer. Most certainly neither is nuclear. Or natural gas. The best generating mix for any particular region will vary from region to region depending on local conditions and depending on whether or not carbon is monetized and to what degree. To eliminate nuclear as part of the potential set of solutions would be stupid; to believe that it is going to provide a lion’s share of the solution is unrealistic. Having a variety of tools available, all to be applied to the end of reducing greenhouse gases in a cost-effective, time efficient, and safe manner, makes the most sense. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2011, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/1042 "2011-03-25T05:45:11Z")
Echoing **WAM** ’s “what if” **Una** - would biomass co-firing gain interest back with carbon monetized? I’m guessing you’ve modeled different carbon tax and cap and trade contingencies at different natural gas and biomass resource costs. Under realistic assumptions how do they play out? ---
**Author:** ![matt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@matt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2011, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/1043 "2011-03-25T06:00:25Z")
> [@levdrakon](#): > > Do you understand what I mean by “realistic?” Realistically, small towns and villages in poor but developing countries need a 1MW turbine more than they need a 1000MW nuke plant, and one is a heck of a lot cheaper for their government to buy, right now. For a lot of the developing world, the choice isn’t a multi-billion dollar nuke plant vs. coal or oil. It’s a wind turbine vs. coal or oil. Or solar vs. coal. Probably a medley of energy sources vs. coal or oil. We could help with their wind turbines. I don’t want us helping them become nuclear powers. If they could handle nuclear power they’d already have it. The jump from oxcarts to nuke plants isn’t as easy as plugging in the new all-in-one AP1000 McNuke. > > The world is going to be increasing its energy demand, but that doesn’t mean its going to follow the US’s footsteps exactly. We’re addicted to everyone having at least one car. Other countries could skip that step, couldn’t they? Younger countries don’t need to use wasteful technologies because they can (hopefully) skip a lot of that BS and use newer more efficient technologies. Okay. We’ve been talking about substantially different things. Local generation and off-grid is a different model. I’ve heard an opinion that off-grid will be the way of the future, remote locations in China, India and Africa using photovoltaic roofing for electric lighting and then developing comfortable but electricity-frugal lifestyles around their spare capacity before the grid ever reaches them. LED lighting, thermal solar hot water, passive solar heating/cooling… all the stuff we should have been doing since 1970 but never bothered with because energy was so cheap. (Apart from LED lighting, of course.) Then they’ll teach us how to do it. It’s a nice idea. Try [http://www.thersa.org/events/audio-and-past-events/2010/the-empathic-civilisation](http://www.thersa.org/events/audio-and-past-events/2010/the-empathic-civilisation) if you’re interested. It’s in the second half of the audio presentation (and presumably the video, which I haven’t watched.) It’s been left out of the Animate though. > [@levdrakon](#): > > That last link doesn’t work for me. Might be area-dependent. Try [Subscribe to read](http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fcac14a8-f734-11df-9b06-00144feab49a.html). Doesn’t have a Google cached version, unfortunately. > [@levdrakon](#): > > I really don’t want China turning around and bringing even more of their friends into the nuclear power club by selling on the nuclear technology we sold them. If China can go all nuke, let them I guess. Not much I can do about that. I think that’s exactly what IS going to happen however, and India might end up selling their thorium reactor technology to US as the uranium price increases. We’d better hope that the AP1000 McNuke is foolproof because I think we’re going to be seeing a lot of them in a few more years. On a more optimistic note, here’s a couple of papers on wind energy in China. At least 41 GW capacity there now, which is quite impressive. The area factor of wind isn’t so bad if you’re growing crops or something in between the towers. Still only equivalent to fourteen 1000 MW powerplants though, with a load factor of 33%. > **[Wind Energy in China](http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2010/ph240/jin1/)** [http://www.societalmetabolism.org/aes2010/Proceeds/DIGITAL%20PROCEEDINGS\_files/PAPERS/O\_157\_Xin\_Li\_15\_09\_1010.pdf](http://www.societalmetabolism.org/aes2010/Proceeds/DIGITAL%20PROCEEDINGS_files/PAPERS/O_157_Xin_Li_15_09_1010.pdf) ---
**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:** [March 25, 2011, 6:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/1044 "2011-03-25T06:03:03Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > There is plenty of wind exploitable; its ongoing costs, including maintenance, are tiny, despite what you imagine ([$8/MWh](http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy07osti/41435.pdf)), and (same DOE source) “wind has consistently been priced at or below the low end of the wholesale power price range.” Still integration into a grid is, a that cite states, “manageable but not costless” and our poor transmission infrastructure makes its expansion trickier. I provided a comprehensive cite of power generation costs. That cite considered the cost of power from birth to death of the power plant. Wind was not very competitive (in the game but not great…I noted its problems when scaled to sizes big enough to power a country which you never responded to). I noted the bonafides of the cite earlier as well. (bolding mine) > [@](#): > > - At 5% discount rate, levelised generation costs range between 25 and 50 USD/MWh for most coal-fired power plants. > > - At a 5% discount rate, the levelised costs of generating electricity from gas-fired power plants vary between 37 and 60 USD/MWh but in most cases it is lower than 55 USD/MWh. > > **- At a 5% discount rate, the levelised costs of nuclear electricity generation ranges between 21 and 31 USD/MWh except in two cases.** > > **- At a 5% discount rate, levelised costs for wind power plants considered in the study range between 35 and 95 USD/MWh, but for a large number of plants the costs are below 60 USD/MWh.** > > - At a 5% discount rate, hydroelectricity generation costs range between some 40 and 80 USD/MWh for all plants except one. > > - At the higher capacity/availability factor the levelised costs of solar-generated electricity are reaching around 150 USD/MWh at a 5% discount rate and more than 200 USD/MWh at a 10% discount rate. > > - For combined heat and power the total levelised costs of generating electricity are highly dependent on the use and value of the co-product, the heat, and are thereby very site specific. The expert group agreed on a pragmatic approach of calculating the levelised costs of generating electricity for this study. At a 5% discount rate, the levelised costs range between 25 and 65 USD/MWh for most CHP plants. > > SOURCE: [http://www.iea.org/textbase/npsum/ElecCostSUM.pdf](http://www.iea.org/textbase/npsum/ElecCostSUM.pdf) (PDF) I have said numerous times before and will say it again… Wind power has a place in the mix. Solar does too. Whatever makes sense is what should be done (with an eye to pollution and such as well). It is my belief though that the power generation needs of the US cannot be met in a significant amount (say more that 20%) by solar and wind. We need something else. Massive power generation is only really managed by boiling water which leaves Coal/Gas/Nuclear (and maybe biomass mixed in). ---
**Author:** ![matt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@matt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2011, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/1045 "2011-03-25T06:05:05Z")
I think that FTcom link might be dynamically generated depending where you’re searching from. Google _china westinghouse_ and it should be in the top ten somewhere. ---
**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:** [March 25, 2011, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/1046 "2011-03-25T06:24:07Z")
I should note that I ignore hydro power in the mix when talking about this because (IIRC) the US has all the hydro power it will ever get. There are not really any places left to build a hydro plant so as such, for the US, it is pretty much a done deal. (This does not include tidal power or generators in sea currents…not sure how those pan out but guessing they do not measure up since aside from a few test facilities no one does it.) ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2011, 6:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/1047 "2011-03-25T06:55:30Z")
> [@levdrakon](#): > > Also, a small plane like that loaded with explosives could do a lot of damage. The plane itself would bounce off like a mosquito hitting a tree. There is no mass to a small plane and little payload. ---
**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:** [March 25, 2011, 7:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/1048 "2011-03-25T07:06:46Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > The plane itself would bounce off like a mosquito hitting a tree. There is no mass to a small plane and little payload. Heh…yeah. Well…wouldn’t bounce off but close enough. Thing would pulverize before getting far. It’d poke a hole and shred on the outer building. That’s where it’d blow up as the outer girders ripped through the plane. If the terrorist was lucky the plane’s engine would continue on a little and cause more damage. It would not make it near the storage pool. Considering the strength of the pool the plane would make a mess and cause semi-minor damage but come nowhere close to causing the power plant serious problems. ---
**Author:** ![TravisFromOR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cc9497/32.png) [@TravisFromOR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TravisFromOR)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2011, 7:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/1049 "2011-03-25T07:29:39Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I should note that I ignore hydro power in the mix when talking about this because (IIRC) the US has all the hydro power it will ever get. There are not really any places left to build a hydro plant so as such, for the US, it is pretty much a done deal. > > (This does not include tidal power or generators in sea currents…not sure how those pan out but guessing they do not measure up since aside from a few test facilities no one does it.) Hell, in the US, they’re tearing out the hydro dams. We’re increasing our dependency on fossil fuels. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2011, 11:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/1050 "2011-03-25T11:32:24Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Whatever makes sense is what should be done (with an eye to pollution and such as well). > > It is my belief though that the power generation needs of the US cannot be met in a significant amount (say more that 20%) by solar and wind. We need something else. Massive power generation is only really managed by boiling water which leaves Coal/Gas/Nuclear (and maybe biomass mixed in). First off, I do not believe I have ignored the concerns over scaling up for _any_ single source, including wind. I do appreciate that cite and particularly agree, as it seems do you, with its conclusion: > [@](#): > > Within this framework and limitations, the study suggests that none of the traditional electricity generating technologies can be expected to be the cheapest in all situations. The preferred generating technology will depend on the specific circumstances of each project. The study indeed supports that on a global scale there is room and opportunity for all efficient generating technologies. But that it also why I think the concern that wind is not a perfect answer in and of itself is a straw man. We are not trying to replace all our generation capacity right now. If we could get renewables up to 10% (forget about 20), maintain nuclear’s share as plants age out (which is an ambitious goal with nuclear), switch from some coal to natural gas, and so on - we’d exceed most CO2 reduction targets handily. _None_ of them can do it on their own. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2011, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/1051 "2011-03-25T13:43:58Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > While it looks like it died recently in the US how would a Carbon Tax affect things? > > I work at the Board of Trade in Chicago (I am not a trader but I know more than a few) and it seemed an industry in trading carbon was developing. Congress seems to have stopped it for now (Cap and Trade). > > If (big IF) Cap and Trade were implemented would that change the calculations you just described noticeably? To answer both you and DSeid, absolutely, I forgot to include that - the death of the carbon tax (which likely isn’t going to happen for quite some time, if ever) has also been a big factor in utility biomass development decisions. However, I need to include that in the studies I’ve done over the last 5+ years as people were expecting some sort of carbon tax, at the utility level most people did not honestly believe that there would be one - it was a risk, but not viewed as being real. And the reason being, as I’ve been told by everyone from plant workers to the CEOs of giant utilities: the average American is a dumbass who cannot think past tomorrow. OK, those are my words summarizing a complex concept. Again, tell the people that their energy costs will suddenly go up by even 10%, and Democrats will be screaming for massive subsidies for the poor (defined usually as anyone who votes for them), and Republicans will be wailing about the ubiquitous “small business owners” who seemingly are gods who walk this very earth, and who must Not Be Touched. I don’t think a carbon tax will get in place unless it’s either so gradual it’s like the apocryphal “frog in boiling water” or else a bunch of politicians decide they want to be one-termers and just do it. I mean really, look around at our culture. Our culture is hopelessly addicted and almost obscenely celebratory of waste and conspicuous consumption. A carbon tax directly assaults the self-righteous ignorance, prejudice, and fear of the average American dumbass. However, there is another wrinkle - as comes up in discussions about cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel, there is serious concern about what the true carbon neutrality of biomass fuels is. When you start including everything from the fuel used in first tilling to nitrogen emissions from the fertilizer (a GHG itself) to the energy used to harvest, transport, prepare, size, and get everything to the plant, the true carbon neutrality is quite low with some fuels. And as has already happened in Denmark, you can get into situations where the utility and the government get engaged in huge legal battles over how to account for carbon neutrality: “do you include the carbon produced by building new combines and tractors?” came up in one case, for example, as well as “do you include the carbon used by replacing tires on the 300 fuel trucks which have to be operating 6 days a week to supply the plant.” Lawyers and engineers can peck the carbon benefit to death like PCP-crazed ducks. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2011, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/1052 "2011-03-25T13:56:30Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Indeed when the oil runs out (or rather runs out enough to become prohibitively expensive for everyone to use gasoline) then electric or hydrogen powered vehicles will have to take their place. That will be a huge demand on power generation so I guess even more coal plants. I know this won’t be for a few decades yet but I might live to see it. Kids today certainly will. > > Swell. ☹ This deserves a comment and it relates to my discussion with **xtisme**. We actually have enough generating capacity [now](http://www.euec.com/getattachment/euecjournal/Paper_4.pdf.aspx) (pdf) to run 84% of the light duty fleet off of electricity (with a decrease in oil imports by 52% and an overall reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from the segment by up to 27%, even with our current coal-heavy generating mix) so long as they powered up in a valley-filling fashion. As that paper notes: > [@](#): > > The U.S. electric power infrastructure is a strategic national asset that is underutilized most of the time. With the proper changes in the operational paradigm, it could generate and deliver the necessary energy to fuel the majority of the U.S. light-duty vehicle (LDV) fleet. This would reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve the economics of the electricity industry, and reduce the U.S. dependency on foreign oil. Valley-filling can be best accomplished with a smart-grid and a sizable portion of electric vehicles could also function in a vehicle to grid fashion (V2G) and serve as grid storage, buffering short term excess production and shortfalls. Hydrogen, synthetic fuels, and biofuels made with power plant inputs, could also be produced in a similar valley filling fashion and that without a smart grid (although I do not know the degree to which current excess capacity would meet the need with those options). The more lower CO2 producing generation we bring on board the better that calculus becomes. It is of note that some regions that are more natural gas and less coal now would have as much as a 40% decrease. Raise up the share of renewables and nuclear and the benefit goes up even higher. ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2011, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/1053 "2011-03-25T15:39:36Z")
> [@Una\_Persson](#): > > However, there is another wrinkle - as comes up in discussions about cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel, there is serious concern about what the true carbon neutrality of biomass fuels is. When you start including everything from the fuel used in first tilling to nitrogen emissions from the fertilizer (a GHG itself) to the energy used to harvest, transport, prepare, size, and get everything to the plant, the true carbon neutrality is quite low with some fuels. And as has already happened in Denmark, you can get into situations where the utility and the government get engaged in huge legal battles over how to account for carbon neutrality: “do you include the carbon produced by building new combines and tractors?” came up in one case, for example, as well as “do you include the carbon used by replacing tires on the 300 fuel trucks which have to be operating 6 days a week to supply the plant.” Lawyers and engineers can peck the carbon benefit to death like PCP-crazed ducks. For me, this is one of the best arguments in favor of a fossil carbon tax. We have a wondrous invention that quickly computes how inputs affect each other–the market and its prices. If we were to tax each ton of fossil carbon as it exited the ground, the costs of fossil carbon would quickly adjust prices across the economy in proportion to their dependence on fossil carbon. Trying to figure inputs on a case-by-case basis is expensive and fraught with potential error. As for implementing a fossil carbon tax, if it’s done at the sources of the fossil carbon, it need not be expensive to administer. Politically, to make it happen, it should be revenue-neutral. The monies collected as the fossil carbon taxes should be distributed on an equal per-capita basis to everyone who fills out an income tax form. People who do not use fossil carbon will effectively be getting cash back. People who use more will pay for the privilege. The initial per-ton tax can start out low, maybe $0.01 per ton of fossil carbon, and can be increased slowly later. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2011, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/1054 "2011-03-25T16:13:01Z")
Two workers got splashed with water that had over 10,000 times the safe level of radiation. That had to come from somewhere. It is far above normal plant radiation. That would suggest the internal containment vessels are broken too. So all the hand waving and shrugging about these plants being a proof of nuclear safety ,is wrong. Unless of course they went to the hospital last week and got 40 million MRIs. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2011, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/1055 "2011-03-25T16:44:06Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > The monies collected as the fossil carbon taxes should be distributed on an equal per-capita basis to everyone who fills out an income tax form. I can see a lot of problems here. > [@](#): > > The initial per-ton tax can start out low, maybe $0.01 per ton of fossil carbon, and can be increased slowly later. Purely IMO, I would guess it would need to be at least $10 per ton to cover administrative and legal costs for the scheme. ---
**Author:** ![Apollo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/41988e/32.png) [@Apollo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apollo)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2011, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/1056 "2011-03-25T17:16:51Z")
[Radiation from Fukushima exceeds Three Mile Island](http://www.asahi.com/english/TKY201103250204.html) \*"It has already reached a level 6 serious accident on the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale (INES). Separately, calculations made by experts place the level of soil contamination in some locations at levels comparable to those found after the Chernobyl accident in 1986. With the Fukushima plant continuing to release radiation, there is the danger that the contaminated land will be unusable for many years."\* It seems that Japan got themselves a “Fukushima exclusion zone”, that’s ca. 300.000 people permanently displaced. ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2011, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/1057 "2011-03-25T18:39:23Z")
[U.S. nuclear plant costs may soar after Japan quake](http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/25/us-japan-quake-nuclear-design-idUSTRE72O4SP20110325?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews) It’s an interesting article that is beginning to examine some of the cost increases the US nuke industry is facing. It sounds like many plants are just barely getting by, and any new significant costs could easily push them into no longer feasible. > [@](#): > > ECONOMICS ‘NOT GOOD’ > > Tougher defenses could raise the cost of new plants and force operators of current facilities – including the 23 using the General Electric Co Mark I design used at Fukushima – to pay for pricey upgrades. > > “The economics were not good at all for the U.S. to build new nuclear plants given the low (natural) gas prices and the outlook for huge reserves of gas,” said Jone-Lin Wang, managing director for global power for IHS CERA, a Cambridge, Massachusetts-based consultancy that focuses on energy issues. > > The cost of building a new nuclear plant in the United States could range from $5 billion to $12 billion depending on the facility’s size. > > The higher debt burdens that nuclear plant operators carry due to their higher construction costs effectively erase the economic benefit of using a cheaper fuel stock. > > Prices of natural gas – another major source of electricity in the United States – have fallen about 69 percent from their last peak in July 2008, and the discovery of new supplies of shale gas leave some forecasters to conclude they will remain low for some time. This could have a serious impact on the 23 plants we have running the same design as Fukushima. It sounds like those plants simply can’t be upgraded with the kinds of new safety features we’re talking about. > [@](#): > > Meanwhile, huge new supplies of natural gas in the U.S. and the absence of any cost on carbon emissions have pared nuclear’s price advantage to near parity with gas and coal, according to a Massachusetts Institute of Technology study. > > “The design issues of the reactors are going to be less important to the future of the nuclear industry than the economic ones,” said nuclear critic Michael Mariotte, executive director of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service. “This is a reminder that a $5 billion investment can go to a multibillion liability in a few hours.” Yeah, convincing investors that it’s worth it at this point is going to be a real hard sell. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2011, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/1058 "2011-03-25T18:47:30Z")
Cobalt was found in the water sample from the turbine building, the water that burned the feet of workers. There is no doubt any longer that reactor core material is leaking out. No doubt any longer that is, for the media, who once more considers this a story. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2011, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/1059 "2011-03-25T19:15:24Z")
OK… now my next concern is whether that leak is still largely contained within the building (or what’s left of it) or leaking out into the environment? Because the answer to that question will have significant ramifications. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2011, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/1060 "2011-03-25T21:14:21Z")
The lack of solid data is maddening. It seems like the water was in the turbine building, but that is conjecture based on extensive analysis of the plant, which is all based on scant information. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647.md?page=52) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647.md?page=54)