Secret Squirrel examines nuclear and its financial costs, versus those of thermal plants,thermal plants fired by whatever means,be it natural gas, oil, or coal.Squirrel sees Nuclear as being extremely expensive in the sum toto, taking in any means what so ever and factoring the costs in.Many times, the construction of a reactor,using the USA as an example,has been halted due to costs rising above and beyond,costs stated to be rising due to construction structural problems, errors in construction being impossible to correct,and as stated being, that on completion electrical costs would HAVE to be increased to the consumer as well. So, nuclear is far from being the efficient,cheap solution to any particular energy crunch. Face it, you can build a
nuclear reactor, or you can build other types of generating facilities.Let's look at the costs now of nuclear, aside the radiation costs when a plant goes sour,the costs to farmers,fisherman, the costs to human life and lives,for a drastic period,the maiming,crippling,mutating effects of nuclear on the yet to be born,the cancers they generate when they go sour,the human and life factors, let's look at the heavy financial burdens they are besides the now evident extremely dangerous,unmanageable, extremely horrific bio hazard that they are.
Now construction costs, as of 2004, run to US$1,300 per kilowatt, or $650(to 780) million for a 500 MWe unit coal fired plant cost to build.Nuclear plants run at,usually, in the vicinity of,when producing electricity, twice that 1000mw area,around say 1300mw,output per reactor,average.So say costs of thermal plant then doubles to 1300,million, or 1.3Billion.Even if we then triple, it 1.9billion for 1500MW,versus the single reactor, the thermal equivalent is, really, inexpensive by comparison,as the Germans say, nicht whar? Thermal plants there for come out very,very much cheaper to build and operate versus the nuclear reactor.Say the units are a 4 reactor job,as Cherokee was, that equates to 7.6billion...all right.......but
Cherokee,nuclear, cost,and was abandoned at. an amazing 11billion building cost,and was still rising, when it was abandoned,but a thermal plant same capacity as Cherokee's 3 reactors, would cost,fixed,5.7 billion.Thermal is justifiably cheaper, by a very long shot.There's yet more to Cherokee, let's look at that.
The energy efficiency of a conventional thermal power station, considered as salable energy (in MW) produced at the plant busbars as a percent of the heating value of the fuel consumed, is typically 33% to 48% efficient,but politicians are refusing to allow utility companies to build coal fired power plants,favoring,strangely,expensively, and dangerously, nuclear plants.Public officials in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas have already denied several utilities permits to build coal fired plants that would generate cheap electricity for consumers.Keep in mind that wind energy is more expensive than coal fired electrical
plants.
Let's continue with yet another abandonment of nuclear construction, that of Marble Hill.When construction was finally closed,stopped,halted, more than $2.8 billion had been spent on construction, and it was only 20% complete,imagine, four 2 1000MW reactors.A thermal would cost 2.6 billion for same energy value of electricity the reactor(s) would produce, and yet be COMPLETED for that cost, and Marble Hill, at 2.8billion,was only 20% completed.So where is the cost energy saving there? So not true then is the statement that nuclear is cheaper,less costly, so very not at all.There's yet more to Marble Hill, let's look
at that much more closely...Marble Hill had two reactors, or was to , of about 1000mw each....Construction did proceed on Marble Hill, but at a somewhat slower pace with more regulatory emphasis on safety issues. Then a symbolic bombshell dropped on the project when, on May 8, 1979, Charles Cutshall, a former employee of Marble Hill's general contractor, Gust K. Newburg, filed an affidavit indicating that he and other Newburg employees had been told to "cover up" construction defects before inspectors could find them.When it finally closed,as in construction terminated, more than $2.8 billion had been spent on construction, and it was only 20% complete...and that, it seems, was defective.How many similar plants have defects in their so called containment structures?We can only guess, BUT we know it CAN and DOES, happen in practice.Specifically, the defects that Cutshall revealed were in the concrete poured in the walls of the containment buildings. Cutshall claimed that "honeycombs" were in a number of areas of the vital containment structure that would protect people from a breach of radioactive gas should a situation like Three Mile Island happen at Marble Hill.Not very enticing in construction is it?
Let's look at another costly non construction, or at least, completion.The Shearon Harris site was originally designed for four reactors, but budget issues and weak demand resulted in three of the reactors being cancelled. The final cost was nearly $3.9B,at abandonment.Yet more thermal plants could easily have been funded, and successfully built and in operation, at fractional costs for the sum total.
And how further expensive has been nuclear.Well, look at these abandonments of construction of reactors,at Bellefonte.Black Fox,Bodega Bay,Callaway,Cherokee,Clinton,Columbia,Hartsville,Haven,Hope Creek,Marble Hill,Midland,North Anna,Pebble Springs,Perry,Phipps Bend,River Bend,Pilrim,Satsop,Sears Island,Seabrook,Shearon Harris,Surrey,Tyrone,Yellow Creek,Zimmer,These abandonments in construction,have between them 45 reactors cancelled during construction due to costs, high costs,
enormous expenditures.So the reactors were thence far too costly for complete, and while 1 billion,at least per abandonment in construction, is low expenditure, some went to items such as $2.8 billion for only 20% complete.So nuclear is inexpensive,cheap,easy to construct? So very,very NOT!It SHOULD scream at you! It does! It should SCREAM at THEM,GOVERNMENT, but the scream falls on ears,deaf,dumb,blind, stupid,ignorant,retarded,and idiot, ears of the government, the politician.The 2.8 billion uselessly expended ,in this case,on Marble Hill,would've provided for 5 (five),count'em, 5(five) thermal plants of equal
electrical output,had the monies been expended on construction of them,and successful construction it WOULD most definitely have been as well.So in place of those 5, NONE,ZERO.Expensive? Yes,most assuredly, financially unsound decisions,undertakings, even yet in terms of cost alone.We all know the undertakings nuclear can and has resulted in, and is resulting in,undertakings not to be suffered by use of thermal,don't we.in terms of the cost LOST entirely on the abandonments, all of America could've been
provided with CHEAP electrical energy in sums vastly greater than existing nuclear plants all wasted, for nothing, on the nuclear dream,the nuclear lie, the nuclear hallucinogenic idiocy politicians suffer from.And many yet more as well in number than those present and existent nuclear plants.Is nuclear justified financially?In no way shape nor form.Cheap nuclear energy?
An unreality, a lie, the nuclear lie.
Now let's consider new constructions.......
Recent construction cost estimates
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_new_nuclear_power_plants)
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).
However, commodity prices shot up in 2008, and so all types of plants will be more expensive than previously calculated 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.
The reported prices at six new pressurized water reactors are indicative of costs for that type of plant:
February 2008 — For two new AP1000 reactors at its Turkey Point site Florida Power & Light calculated overnight capital cost from $2444 to $3582 per kW, which were grossed up to include cooling towers, site works, land costs, transmission costs and risk management for total costs of $3108 to $4540 per kilowatt. Adding in finance charges increased the overall figures to $5780 to $8071 per kW.
March 2008 — For two new AP1000 reactors in Florida Progress Energy announced that if built within 18 months of each other, the cost for the first would be $5144 per kilowatt and the second $3376/kW - total $9.4 billion. Including land, plant components, cooling towers, financing costs, license application, regulatory fees, initial fuel for two units, owner's costs, insurance and taxes, escalation and contingencies the total would be about $14 billion.
May 2008 — For two new AP1000 reactors at the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Generating Station in South Carolina South Carolina Electric and Gas Co. and Santee Cooper expected to pay $9.8 billion (which includes forecast inflation and owners' costs for site preparation, contingencies and project financing).
November 2008 — For two new AP1000 reactors at its Lee site Duke Energy Carolinas raised the cost estimate to $11 billion, excluding finance and inflation, but apparently including other owners costs.
November 2008 — For two new AP1000 reactors at its Bellefonte site TVA updated its estimates for overnight capital cost estimates ranged to $2516 to $4649/kW for a combined construction cost of $5.6 to 10.4 billion (total costs of $9.9 to $17.5 billion).
April 2008 — Georgia Power Company reached a contract agreement for two AP1000 reactors to be built at Vogtle, at an estimated final cost of $14 billion plus $3 billion for necessary transmission upgrades.
In comparison, the AP1000 units already under construction in China have been reported with substantially lower costs due to significantly lower labour rates:
In 2007, the reported cost for the first two AP1000 units under construction in China was $5.3 billion.
In 2009, the published cost for 4 AP1000 reactors under construction in China was a total of $8 billion.
Notice the immense costs, a very far cry from the by comparison peanut cost of a thermal plant of course, these are the projected costs, the actual construction costs......curiously.......escalate yet further.
Let's look at Vermont, and the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant.It is a General Electric boiling water reactor (BWR) type nuclear power plant currently owned by Entergy. It is located in the town of Vernon, Vermont, and generates 620 megawatts (MWe) of electricity at full power.Note that a thermal coal or other fired plant could do the same,produce just as much, cost considerably less, and be infinitely safer in operations.Now the plant began commercial operations in 1972. It provided 71.8% of all electricity generated in Vermont in 2008, which is 35% of the overall electricity used in the state.Again, note so too could a thermal plant you know.
Coal fired, and thermal, have a life expectancy of 25 years in design,same a nuclear really, but can also be easily renovated to go far longer,at far less cost, than a renovated job on a nuclear reactor plant,and at far less cost than nuclear plants.Also note that no less than 38 coal fired plants STILL exist in the United States,from the 1940's.A nuclear plant would so utterly and completely not be here in that time slot.The coal fired goes on and on and on and on....and safely too.
Generally speaking, nuclear plants were designed for a life of about 30 years. Newer plants are designed for a 40 to 60-year operating life.Thermal plants easily match and exceed this.But what happens at the end of life, the end of a reactor? It must be decommissioned,dismantled,taken away,bury etc etc etc, and so too must it's nuclear fuel needs be decommissioned as it were.How is this done? Well there is the so called..
Safe Enclosure (or Safestor(e) SAFSTOR):
This option postpones the final removal of controls for a longer period, usually in the order of 40 to 60 years.
And..
Entombment:
This option entails placing the facility into a condition that will allow the remaining on-site radioactive material to remain on-site without the requirement of ever removing it totally. This option usually involves reducing the size of the area where the radioactive material is located and then encasing the facility in a long-lived structure such as concrete, that will last for a period of time to ensure the remaining radioactivity is no longer of concern.
Yes,it can be dismantled and buried, and the spent and nuclear fuels specially stored in water pools for dozens of years etc. and only safely as long as it's storage pool water levels can be maintained, else the rods go in to self-criticality and release radiations just as they do and would if a reactor suffers coolant loss. And so now we know,too, that the building itself, et all support buildings,etc what they previously cost in sum toto, is a write off......in short.......the building(s) is(are) useless,in all instances......and build a new reactor.well look at the costs of building.....and the escalating costs......
Additional costs, hidden costs, of a reactor.......the required mining, processing of and then conversion to Fuel rods and from rods assembly to fuel bundles,in short creation of it's fuel,is expensive.Consider coal,oil,natural gas is much easily, and if not int he same fashion, got out of the ground, yes, but then nucelar fuel has enormous processing development,creation costs versus that which the thermal plant uses.Thermal plants use coal, oils, natural gas, easily gotten hold of, processed as you are familiar with.Thermals also don not have the after use storage of costs of the so called spent (only partially spent bundles,you know, as are most definately capable of self-criticality whence water is removed from them as we know, generating the self same nuclear radiations of all varieties just as if the reactor had exposed and melted down, especially since they are stored in QUANTITY,vast QUANTITY at the nuclear site or wherever they are stored, and thence after the cost of dismantling and burial storage of a dirty reactor),fuels.
Tired of the thermal plant?Switch it off.Decomission it, simply abandon it. It can be started up again later,anytime really at miniscule costs.On, off, no problem.Reactors are,however, an immense problems at offing or at least trying to,safely that is, and we've seen the problems with respect to Chernobyl, and now Fukushima, and results of the problem with nuclear plants.........and..........at what costs now, what with food chain contamination, jobs,livelihoods, fishing etc etc etc, and..... of health.......immediate in some cases, long term on others(30-40 year cancer developments,sufferings,and symptomatic deaths), mutations of,genetic damage of, future generations(as in deformities,infirmaties,malformities).All at high cost indeed.So
where is this cheap,easy,safe, electricity? It isn't,it doesn't exist.Just build and start up and commission a nuclear plant, and the utility rises the cost of electricity. However I must admit,thermals are subject to the costs of oil it seems,oil fired, that is.So start up a thermal oil fired, and utilities raise the costs,due they say,due to cost of the fuel due to the greater consumption of same,and of electricity so generated but, recall the more one consumes according to the laws of capitalism, the laws of supply and demand,the costs of said fuel,are supposed to...drop,but this economic law does not function in reality.No, costs are raised with increasing demand, the reverse of capitalism, so what's at work there? Natural gas is not supposed to
increase with the costs of oil importation,world prices as it were.But me thinks to government is at work here.in detrimental fashion, working hand in glove with the oil monopoly and the natural gas companies as well, as natural gas is in no way shape nor form dependent on nor connected with oil, but when one rises,the other does as well, strangely, and out of sorts.
However, government could and should regulate this, but then government seems to be influenced by utilities and oil concerns in and after some here to fore not revealed publicly fashion. Never the less, in spite of all this, thermal generation is very much safer for the general public and vastly less expensive as well.Face it, a thermal plant will NEVER result in a Chernobyl, nor Fukushima, cities will NEVER have to be evacuated due to thermal plant malfunction, nor lands and seas hopelessly contaminated, nor human life cancerously irradiated.Face it, dollar for dollar, pound for pound, thermal plants have it all over
nuclear plants,utterly and completely, and in terms of the costs of human lives,livelihood and quality of life as well.Thermal is cheap,efficient, nuclear is the utter complete opposite,and is in no way shape nor form, in reality, in the truth of being on paper,on the financial balance sheet,financially justifiable.Thermal is the heaven, nuclear is the hell.Financially as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment