Nuclear Energy Making an Ultimate Comeback?

[PamW]

10. BALONEY!!!

Last edited Sat Feb 2, 2013, 03:38 PM - Edit history (1)

kristopher states:
The cost escalation has little to nothing to do with protestors. It is directly attributable to complexity required by the inherent dangers of the technology.

France and Finland are running into the same problem of costly delays in the political process.

If it were directly attributable to the complexity, then there would be design changes. Show us where the designs of the plants are changed. I can't prove a negative - there are no design changes.

The very earliest power plants that were built have to meet the very same safety requirements as any new plant; the NRC doesn't "grandfather in" older plants. They have to meet current safety requirements.

The very first plants that were built in the late '60s and early '70s are just as complex; and use the same technology. They came in at very reasonable prices. For example, as a child I watched the building of a nuclear power plant in my father's home town of South Haven, MI; the Palisades Plant:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palisades_Nuclear_Generating_Station

The Palisades Power Plant is a nuclear power plant located on Lake Michigan, in Van Buren County's Covert Township, Michigan, on a 432-acre (175 ha) site 5 miles (8.0 km) south of South Haven, Michigan, USA. Palisades is owned and operated by Entergy. It was operated by the Nuclear Management Company and owned by CMS Energy Corporation prior to the sale completed on April 11, 2007. It was built at a cost of $149 million.

Of course, the $149 million price tag is in 1971 dollars; so you have to add 4 decades of inflation. But that doesn't bring the total to multiple billions of dollars.

Numerous studies by the National Academy of Science and Engineering, the American Physical Society, the American Institute of Physics, the American Nuclear Society, the Atomic Industrial Forum all show that the very early plants like Palisades were constructed in just a few years, and had essentially zero delays due to protests and court cases. The plants that ended up costing many billions were the ones like Diablo Canyon were the plant spent a decade sitting idle while the cases made their way through the courts.

The builders have to borrow the money to build the plants, and they can not charge the rate payers for any of the cost until the plant is actually in operation. So when there were delays, the builders couldn't make payments on their loans; so the money was just added to the principal, and the costs sky-rocket.

It is certainly possible to build a nuclear power plant for a reasonable cost; because it has been done. Take the $149 million in 1971 dollars and inflate it to current dollars and you should get a value for what a nuclear power plant can be built for in terms of today's dollars.

If these billion dollar costs were due to changes made to the plants in order to control a complex technology; then why does this escalation happen to all the plants, instead of just the first few.

If it were due to the complexity, it would mimic the costs that Boeing airliners cost. The very first 787 is the one that costs an arm and a leg. However, once Boeing gets the design finalized; it is able to produce identical copies of its first prototype for a reasonable cost. The second, third, fourth... Boeing 787s don't cost as much as Boeing 787 serial number 1.

If it is due to complexity; the costs should look like the cost structure for a complex technology like aviation.

However, that's not what it looks like for nuclear power plants. We basically have 2 models; PWRs and BWRs, instead of the 737, MD-90s, 747, 757, 767, 777, and now 787 that Boeing has.

We have working / safety approved models of both reactor types operating in the USA. So why would the cost of a new reactor now be any greater than the cost of old reactors adjusted for inflation? It would be like building some new 777s; they know how to build those without any more design changes.

In truth, it is NOT design changes, or any of the science and engineering of the nuclear plants; those are well in hand.

No - the problem nuclear power has is a political and not a technical problem.

The plants in the past have had costs spiral due to protests and lawsuits.

The coup de grace was seen in the Shoreham plant. The Shoreham plant was built and the NRC was ready to license; and its owner Long Island Lighting Co. (LILCO) went to the State of New York public utilities commission to get the rate that LILCO could charge its customers for Shoreham-made electricity.

Under the direction of then New York Governor Mario Cuomo, the father of the current New York Governor; LILCO was told that the rate it could charge for Shoreham's electricity was $0.00 per kw-hr.

LILCO could give away Shoreham's power; but could not charge for it. LILCO had borrowed the money to build Shoreham, and Shoreham had to be able to "earn its keep". The plant, like any power plant, had to earn back the money it took to build / operate the plant. Since LILCO couldn't charge for Shoreham's electricity; it had no way to pay back the loan. LILCO had to declare bankruptcy.

Therein lies the real hesitance for companies building nuclear power plants. CEOs of power companies realize that an election can put an unfriendly governor into power in the state in which the plant is built. That governor, or the Courts in lawsuits could put the company into receivership with an opposing decision.

Power company execs know that when they build a nuclear power plant, they are playing a game called "You bet your company".

It shouldn't be that way. Everything should be decided BEFORE the plant is built. If a plant is built, then the company should be allowed to operate it. No company can do business if they go to the government for permission for a project, the government agrees, and then the government gets to change its mind.

How would you like it if your local building department was that way. You have someone design your dream house, you get all the permits and permission to build the house from the local government. You build the house, then the city tells you, "You can't live there, we changed our mind, tear it down".

Well that's what nuclear power plant owners have to contend with, and we wonder why they are expensive?

If you look back at the history of nuclear power plants and their costs; and we examine the 2nd generation reactors; i.e. the ones that are still operating today; they break down into two groups. Those built before a certain event, like Palisades; were built and began operation at a fairly reasonable price, like Palisades $149 million. Those that were built / first operated after a certain '70s event had their costs spiral out of control. Those like Diablo Canyon, had their costs spiral into the billions of dollars.

So what was this event that marks the demarcation between nuclear power plants with reasonable prices, and those that had prices spiral out of control?

The event was the end of the Vietnam War.

During the Vietnam War, nuclear power plants enjoyed very little protest. However, after the end of the Vietnam War, there was a large cadre of "professional protesters" and with the end of the war, they didn't have anything to protest. So they turned to protesting nuclear power.

Nuclear power costs spiraled because nuclear power was the new target of the massive protest machine that was engendered by the Vietnam War.

PamW