"Those who think that nuclear power would be a cheap and clean way......

[JohnyCanuck]

to render the US less dependent on oil should have a close look at the French record."

Above quote from this article at SmirkingChimp.com:

France's nuke power poster child has a money melt-down

The myth of a successful nuclear power industry in France has melted into financial chaos.

With it dies the corporate-hyped poster child for a "nuclear renaissance" of new reactor construction that is drowning in red ink and radioactive waste.

Areva, France's nationally-owned corporate atomic façade, has plunged into a deep financial crisis led by a devastating shortage of cash.

Electricite de France, the French national utility, has been raided by European Union officials charging that its price-fixing may be undermining competition throughout the continent.

Delays and cost overruns continue to escalate at Areva's catastrophic Olkiluoto reactor construction project in Finland. Areva has admitted to a $2.2 billion, or 55%, cost increase in the Finnish building site after three and a half years. The Flamanville project--the only one now being built in France--is already over $1 billion more expensive than projected after a single year under construction.

SNIP

Widely portrayed as the model of corporate success, reactor-builder Areva is desperately short of money. As it begs a bailout from its dominant owner, the French government, Areva's mismanagement and overextension in promoting and building new reactors has wrecked its image in worldwide capital markets. According to Mycle Schneider, Paris-based author of "Nuclear Power in France--Beyond the Myth," Areva shares have plunged by over 60% since June 2008, twice as much as the CAC40, the standard indicator of the 40 largest French companies on the stock market.

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/20830

[Duke Newcombe]

1. This only proves...

that fools can mismanage ANY business. I fail to see how this means that nuke power cannot be viable for us.

[MajorChode]

2. Because it made itself un-viable

Wingnuts like to perpetuate the myth that the left killed nuke plants, but nuke power died in the US because building nuke plants simply wasn't cost effective.

If nuke power can't make it in France, it stands even less of a chance of making it here were there are considerably more coal and natural gas reserves, at least until the US decides to starve itself off those options.

[imdjh]

4. But why is it so expensive to build?

Originally, we were told that nuclear would be so plentiful and cheap that it wouldn't be worthwhile to meter it.

We're getting screwed and part of the problem is the bidding process. The "lowest bid" sounds good, but think about it. Would you simply accept the "lowest bid" of three bids from car dealers? Of course not. You go in there with the "highest price" that you are willing to pay and you stick to it, ready to walk away if they won't deal. You came up with that "highest price" through research. Governments spend a fortune on studies on all sorts of crap before acting, and they can't pay some whiz kid to figure out how much it costs to build something, include a reasonable profit, and then use the figure as a "meet or beat, or get lost" figure?

Treasure Island recently spent a fortune on a bridge. Before that, the city was taking bids to restore an "historic building" (there are NO historic buildings in Treasure Island). The bid they accepted was more than it would have cost to tear the piece of crap down and build a beautiful new building. Morons! We've got morons on our team.

[MadHound]

5. The reason it costs so much are all the safety measures

Safety measures that weren't taken into account back when the industry was talking about "too cheap to meter". Everything, from location to soil composition to weld inspections to special materials, the list is nearly endless. The thing is, it has to be because unlike other power generation sources, with nuke a small problem can escalate to a major disaster quickly.

[ddeclue]

7. Other power sources?? -what about hydro electric dams in particular

Far more people have been killed by hydro electric dam collapse than have ever been killed by nuclear power.

People's fear of nuclear power is just irrational fear based on what they can't understand - just like people's fear of flying.

[MadHound]

8. Well, having worked at a nuclear plant

I understand the dangers involved, the issues involved, so I wouldn't say that my fear is irrational.

The fact of the matter is that if you don't inspect the containment welds, the quality of concrete, a million other things large and small, yes, you can have a problem. If it's a problem with cooling, then you've got a major problem that will kill more people in one stroke than any single dam collapse.

That's not irrational fear, that's reality.

[MajorChode]

9. The reason why nuclear power is safe is because....

it's very expensive to keep it that way. The same goes for flying.

[quaker bill]

16. To include Chernobyl?

Yes, I do understand that we do not use graphite moderated designs in our commercial plants. But regardless Chernobyl killed and is still taking the lives of many people, in particular the firefighters and cleanup workers who were massively exposed, getting lifetime doses in 5 minutes or less.

The point is that any of these plants are in fact just a well moderated and heavily throttled nuclear explosion. You don't have to lose containment, cooling, or moderation for very long before some really bad things happen.

[MajorChode]

22. There have been numerous accidents in the US also

None that have reached the truly disastrous stage, but many that have been quite serious. And even with all of the added regulation, you still have nuclear power plants that were poorly built and never used because of it.

[MajorChode]

10. That may be part of it, but...

it doesn't explain why existing nuclear power plants are shutting down. Some plants are profitable, but others never have been. Much of it depends on what market the plant is in.

Now if the US starts putting expensive restrictions on coal fired plants, nuclear may become a good option.

[MadHound]

18. Existing nuclear plants are aging, badly.

They were only designed to last for about thirty five years or so, and some of them are now going on fifty years. Another danger of our current nuclear system.

These plants have to shut down soon, all that are currently operating, because the immense stress that they're under is slowly but surely weakening them.

Coal plants already have expensive restrictions. Smokestack scrubbers, safety regs, all that. I remember the bad ol' days when they didn't have the environmental restrictions, no a pretty sight.

Our energy future isn't a binary choice between coal or nuclear. Clean renewable alternatives can provide for all of our energy needs, and are the option out there.

[MajorChode]

21. Some were shut down because of age, some weren't

Also just because they were designed for a particular service life, doesn't mean they can't be refurbished and some have had their steam generators replaced and greatly extended their usable life to over 60 years.

There are a few that were shut down early simply because they weren't economically feasible. Maine Yankee is a good example and there are others. Some plants were never completed because of economics. The main reason why more nuclear plants aren't being built is because nobody will invest in them. The reason why so many of them stayed open for so long is because they were given monopoly status so cheaper sources of electricity couldn't undercut them which is the same thing that was done all over Europe.

I agree that the best solution lies in diversity and there are plenty of options available. I'm just refuting the notion that nuclear plants in the US are economically "viable" because many of them never have been.

[quaker bill]

17. It is expensive to build

because Joe-Bob Construction, Inc. is not qualified to build them. This is actually a good thing. The notion that people in this business do not go through considerable effort to reduce costs and obtain the very best deal they can is silly and quite unfounded.

This is a construction project where tolerances are small, the materials are exotic, and error is not allowed. This is as it should and must be.

The problem on the profit side is the price of alternatives. When oil is cheap, nukes cannot compete. Every so often over the last 30 ro 40 years, oil prices take a sustained plunge, this keeps the competition out of the market. In Europe they deal with this by slapping on a huge tax to keep the oil price at sustained highs. We don't. This is why they drive small cars, use public transit, and have nukes. It is really just that simple.

[MajorChode]

24. It has more to do with the price of coal and natural gas as far as the US goes

Only about 1-2% of the US supply of electricity comes from oil fired plants.

I didn't think Europe generates much electricity from oil either, but I'm not as sure about that one.

[imdjh]

3. ditto

Here is Florida we have recently been hit with a 30% increase in our already high (relative to Texas, Iowa and some other states with power collectives) electricity rates. The excuse is that Progress Energy needs to build and expand nuclear facilities. So we're giving them something like $40 million a month more than last year, and as far as I know there is no accountability whatsoever. Of course, these rates will never go down. They didn't go down when the price of oil dropped, the excuse being that coal was still expensive. So we're paying to build a plant that we hold no interest in, and we will pay for the power when they come on line. All of this was approved by a Republican commission, of course.

[MajorChode]

25. Many areas are still paying for nuclear power plants that were never built

This is one of the big problems I have with power utility companies to begin with. They invest in nuclear power and when those investments go bad, the ratepayers have to pick up the tab. However when they are making huge profits, very little of those profits get returned to the ratepayers.

Power producers should either be completely independent, or a better solution would be for them to be completely socialized. This middle ground that we have in many instances almost always results in the ratepayers getting screwed.

[imdjh]

29. That's the wild thing- the red states tend to have public utilities, power collectives, etc...

while blue states tend to have private power companies. Florida is a bit different, blue on the outside and red on the inside.

[MajorChode]

30. Power plants tend to be in less populated areas

At least in my area there are no power collectives and they seem to be in the rural areas. They enjoy lower pricing for it. You would think it would be cheaper to deliver power in urban and suburban areas since there is less transmission lines per person. So basically state and local governments essentially form collectives for the people who wind up taking it straight up the ass.

[ddeclue]

6. It's not cheap but it's not as expensive as nuke bashers would claim

The U.S. Navy has used nuclear power very effectively for 50+ years now.

You have to consider the ACTUAL cost of coal when you add in fuel and its impact on the environment and on people's health to compare apples to apples.

[MajorChode]

11. The US Navy doesn't have to worry about making a profit.

Effective in military terms rarely means cost effective.

For the Navy's mission, nuclear power plants are the way to go, but you won't ever see them installed on too many civilian ships.

[bananas]

13. It is as expensive as nuke-bashers claim

Just a few years ago, the nuclear industry said they wouldn't need CWIP, now they say they can't build without it - the nuclear industry itself has confirmed that the nuke-bashers were right about how expensive it is. It's turning into a boondoggle, cost estimates keep rising every few months, and the plants aren't even approved yet.

edit to add:

Some recent cost estimates: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=187599&mesg_id=188142

A great quote from a pro-nuke a few years ago:
"The fact that the "official" capital cost estimates for new reactors has been going up, oh, about 50% per year for several years now is annoying enough ($1000/kW ~7 years ago, then $1500/kW, then $2000, then $2500, and now I'm even hearing about $3000-$4000). Am I being lied to now or was I being lied to then? Inflation and materials cost escalation is nowhere near enough to explain this."
http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2007/06/keystone-report-on-nuclear-energy.html
(Official estimates have blown past those numbers since then.)

More great quotes: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=167577&mesg_id=167602

[DCKit]

15. They're figuring in what were previously listed as (unexpected) cost-over runs.

No nuke plant ever built (in the U.S.) has ever come in at anything resembling the original quote.

In Midland, MI, they converted a bloated, half-finished nuke to run on natural gas and saved $400 million. The owners just couldn't take the contractors shit any more.

Bechtel builds nuke plants - Halliburton got their business plan from Bechtel. Any questions?

[MajorChode]

26. Is it any surprise that energy companies ally themselves almost exclusively with Repugs?

Haliburton, Enron, Bechtel, Exxon, Conoco, Oxy, etc.

Take from the poor and give to the rich. That's the Republican way.

[miyazaki]

12. killing nuclear power was one dumb move by the usa. n/t

[quaker bill]

14. You don't seriously believe

that any protest movement was ever sufficient to kill the nuke industry, do you? The nuke industry died because debt service on the construction costs combined with normal operating costs and liability insurance made them cost prohibitive. Businesses do business to make money. If there had been money to be made making these reactors, we would have plenty of them.

Of course, operative in any energy technology, the OPEC states have consistently adjusted price and supply to prevent any competition from arising that might cut into their market share. This is also the reason why we don't all have solar panels on our homes.

[MajorChode]

28. I think the protest movement probably did kill one or two nuke plants

However the actually reasons were because the plants had problems anyway and killing them was the smartest move because they never should have been started to begin with.

I would agree completely that the protest movement in and of itself had practically no effect on the nuclear power industry. It's just a myth perpetuated by the right to serve their interests. The same thing happened when the right accused the left of preventing refineries from being built and causing gas prices to skyrocket. A congressional investigation proved that major oil companies were actually buying out smaller competitors and shutting down perfectly good refineries in order to increase their profits. However those facts barely made the news. Myths are spread when people fail to properly educate themselves.

[madokie]

19. The biggest problem with Nuclear Energy is the big lie that it is

Always was and appears to always will be.

As Schneider's "Nuclear Power" in France--Beyond the Myth" points out, after 35 years of nuclear power development, the French "nuclear dreamland" gets only 16% of its final energy from nuclear power. Commissioned by the Greens-EFA Group in the European Parliament (Brussels, December, 2008), Schneider's report shows that despite its huge nuclear commitment, almost half of France's energy consumption still comes from oil.

In fact, says Schneider, "the wasteful nature of the French economy and households leads to a higher per capita consumption of oil than in Germany, Italy, the UK or even the EU on average.


http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/20830

[ThomWV]

20. That is probably one of the most misleading articles I've seen in ages

Pure hogwash. First off its a construction company that is in financial trouble, not the nuclear power industry. Then there are some unrelated bullshit paragraphs thrown in here and there just for the pure hell of it - like the nonsense about Yucca Mountain being a failure. It is not, it can't be a failure because its never been used - it the very safest place on earth for the storage of spent material is not used but hundreds of less safe private repositories are used, let someone explain that one.

[jpak]

23. But...but...but...Areva built Nucular Powered Funkytown where cool simfolk dance

:rofl:

[defendandprotect]

27. And no insurance on reactors, except from government/taxpayers . ..