Keeping old nuclear power plants running is not expensive, building them is expensive. Dismantling nuclear power plants is also expensive but there is no way around those costs, anyway.
First, the Fukushima case is not yet closed. Tepco told us today (faz.net), that the three damaged reactors are stiil out of control, at least until end of this year. We will see, what will happen.
Second: don't you ignore the risk of how many people _could_ die, in the case of a big disaster? That would have global conequences for quite some days (ironic).
Even if nobody would die under normal conditions (nuclear and coal), the consequenences of a (more or less probable) big catastrophe (height of fall) are the main counter argument against nuclear power.
>« Even if nobody would die under normal conditions (nuclear and coal »
Except the point of what I was saying and of the link I gave is precisely that under "normal conditions", people die due to coal, whereas it is not the case with nuclear plant.
The reason is that all a nuclear plant releases in the air is water.
> « the consequenences of a (more or less probable) big catastrophe (height of fall) are the main counter argument against nuclear power. »
You must take into account the odds of a probable disaster, such as an earthquake in Japan, but not the consequences of any disaster.
It's just unreasonable to assume an improbable disaster will happen. You end up renouncing any technology by thinking that way.
Obviously, Nuclear power plant must be built with security as the main concern. Obviously, a nuclear reactor can be very dangerous.
But refusing to use nuclear plants, which are much more efficient than classic ones and a good long-term investment, is idiotic.
We're far more likely to die in a car accident than because of radio-activity, or any other disaster that's on television.
Yet, noone is suggesting that a country should be "car free".
Until a better, safer replacement is found, we'll use cars, and nuclear plants.
>« not a single site would survive a large passenger aircraft crashing into it. »
Now, what does that even mean ? If surviving means "keep on working", obviously not.
If it means destruction of the protection layers of concrete around the reactor, it's more dangerous, but just because the reactor is open, it doesn't mean the radioactive material is going to fly away.
That's exactly why it's dangerous to anyone near the plant, as opposed to a Chernobyl-style or Fukushima-style disaster, where radioactive material is disseminated.
Excuse me? As far as I know the damage to the containment was very limited in Fukushima. And they were very worried about maintaining the cooling in the damaged buildings.
In a plane crash scenario we might be talking about no containment and no cooling at all. Instead we might be left with a pile of radioactive rubble and a kerosine fire.
After all you could be right that the scale would not be comparable...
In any case, may I remind you we're discussing a very hypothetical scenario?
Well, 9/11 did happen, and reactor walls are not built to resist a plane crash. So what exactly is hypothetical about the scenario?
As far as I know the damage to the containment was very limited in Fukushima
Right. Except water from the ocean was going in and out through the few tiny holes, and maybe that was the main problem.
See, uranium doesn't fly away when the reactor is open, but of course, if irradiated water goes right back in the ocean, there's dissemination on a bigger scale than Chernobyl.
« 9/11 did happen »
A huge scale terrorist attack like this is statistically
less likely than an earthquake in Japan.
Right. Except water from the ocean was going in and out through the few tiny holes, and maybe that was the main problem.
Where are you getting that from? Afaik they flooded the buildings with seawater on purpose, as a means of cooling. They did that because it appeared to be the lesser of two evils.
See, uranium doesn't fly away when the reactor is open
It does seem to fly pretty well when you add fire. At least that's what the 2600 squaremile no-go zone in chernobyl would suggest.
statistically less likely than an earthquake
That may be true, yet it's bound to happen eventually, right?
How would you rate the socio-economic impact of a single such event in contrast to, say, 9/11?
Chernobyl had no core containment, it used graphite as a moderator, and it wasn't merely fire that disseminated radioactive material, it was a big explosion.
Also, the director was incompetent.
Note that the impact of Chernobyl remained rather localised. 2600 square miles may sound big, but on a European scale, it's not much, and Europe is the smallest continent.
If you're telling me poor design and incompetence are bad and especially dangerous in security-sensitive contexts, I agree. So ?
Flooding the reactors was indeed the lesser of two evils.
« That may be true, yet it's bound to happen eventually, right? »
Can we agree that any given reactor will likely have no core containment either, after a passenger jet crashed into it?
No. A broken core containment still provides some protection.
I take my optimism from the fact that I'm not too impressed by things that have little chance from happening, which prevents me from being scared of meteor rains, terrorist attacks, or whatever disaster you can think of.
To put things in perspective, again :
There are much less nuclear power plants than there are dangerous pesticide or fertiliser factories. It is also more likely that a pesticide or fertiliser factory will be poorly maintained.
And yet, people who want to shut down nuclear plants are much more numerous and listened to than people who want to shut down chemical plants.
The only reason people are afraid of nuclear power is that it is associated with those bombs so powerful nobody ever dared to use them in a war since 1945.
There is no rational reason to shut down nuclear plants, and get rid of an energy source that's more efficient and cleaner than any other we know of.
A broken core containment still provides some protection.
Have you seen what a plane crash does to a structure?
As far as I know most reactor walls are not hardened to withstand a plane-crash.
That means you wouldn't end up with a "broken core containment". You'd end up with a pile of rubble.
not too impressed by things that have little chance from happening
That's a valid opinion. But I think it's an equally valid opinion that terrorist attacks are not
as rare as meteor rains. And that terrorists will specifically target these facilities.
The only reason people are afraid of nuclear power is that it is associated with those bombs
Personally my concerns are not related to the bombs.
I merely think the economic equation that makes nuclear plants appear cost-effective
will collapse over the first such event.
Your average nuclear plant is said to be profitable to the tune of $500mio USD/yr.
The total cost of the chernobyl disaster is estimated at around $235 billion dollars, and counting.
That means all US nuclear plants combined (circa 100) have to run for 10 years
in order to break even with a single disaster. And that's under the assumption that
a meltdown in the middle of the USA wouldn't be quite a bit more expensive than
a disaster in the middle of Ukrainian nowhere.
Thus my conclusion is that the facilities will be shutdown rather quickly
when and if such an event occurs.
Compared to the WTC, it's quite small, and easy to miss from above.
It's quite telling that most people identify a nuclear plant by its cooling towers, something that isn't a specific part of their design.
Weeks after Fukushima alleged terrorists were found making their way towards Sellafield in the UK. The obvious viability of this hypothetical attack became apparent after March 11th.
I can hardly imagine a bigger catastrophe than Fukushima... Now, the following facts are from my memory, so they might not be absolutely accurate, but I believe the points stand.
- It was hit by an earthquake with a magnitude 1 point higher than it was built for, and it was perfectly OK.
- Only the following tsunami damaged it, and only because it interrupted the power supply of the cooling pumps.
Let us not forget that the power plant was 20 or so years old. New plants would no doubt be much safer.
There were no substantial aftershocks that damaged the plant, nor were there any secondary tsunamis.
I can hardly imagine a bigger catastrophe than Fukushima
That's a failure of imagination. Imagine if a comparatively minor secondary tsunami had hit after the containment vessel had been breached. That could spread highly radioactive materials just abotu anywhere - and, worse - could have made it too dangerous to get close enough to the plant for the for the fire engines (!) to spray water to cool the reactors.
We're talking full cost accounting and deaths are a large component in that. (well depends on how many deaths there are of course, in coal plants they're a big part).
I don’t think the cost for dealing with waste adds up. It stays (pretty much) constant: High fixed costs and very low variable costs.
Dismantling a nuclear power plant doesn’t get more expensive just because they are running longer. When it comes to waste, finding a site and building the infrastructure is expensive, the cost of dealing with additional waste from letting the plants run longer has to be negligible.
Whether or not we have a solution to deal with the fuel is pretty much irrelevant. We have to find a solution anyway, there is no way around it. We might as well keep the plants running longer.
we don't have even a viable intermediate solution. Which would have to be built.
The spent fuels are full and provide a new danger. See Fukushima on the effects of full spent fuel pools in times of an nuclear accident. Reactor five had also recently a loss of cooling for it.
Currently much of the used fuel is stored on site. This has never been planned, costs additional money, and provides new dangers.
Plus, for a storage solution it definitely makes a huge difference if we have to store the nuclear waste of ten reactors running ten years or of twenty reactors running 50 years. The cost is not the same.
The current experimental Asse II site already cost us BILLIONS of Euros. Plus it is fucked up and needs to been evacuated for a few additional billions.
Each plant produces a huge amount of waste each year it runs, all of various impact levels, but all of which has a cost to store or process. So yes, there may only be a small amount of extra direct fuel waste, but there is a lot more than that to consider.
Sure, but that gets us no closer to knowing the marginal cost of one additional kilo of nuclear waste (of any description). My suspicion is that the marginal cost is quite low.
All I'm saying is this: You likely can't take the average cost of safely storing one kilo of waste given current levels of waste and calculate the additional cost that results from letting the reactors run a few more years. This is econ 101. I like to use newspapers to explain the concept: The cost of making 10,000 newspapers in nearly the same as the cost of making 20,000 newspapers. This is because nearly all the money that has to be spent is fixed (wages for journalists and staff, buildings and machines, …). The variable costs are very low in comparison (letting the presses run a little longer, additional paper, ink, …).
Building, dismantling and taking care of waste all costs money and generates no revenue. (Building a nuclear power plant at least brings with it potential future revenue. Power companies have no interest in dismantling plants or taking care of waste, it doesn't make them money.) Running the plant also costs money but also generates revenue. Especially old nuclear power plants (which are already written off) are profitable as hell. Why do you think are power companies interested in keeping them running as long as possible?
Every additional day those nuclear power plants run decreases their cost/kWh.
They are interested in keeping them running as long as possible because that is where their pay checks come from. Every additional day they run increases the risk of catastrophic failure, that is the point I am making. I don't see them as a valid or viable enterprise. The cost/revenue model of accounting is really stretched when it comes to dealing with the timelines necessary for proper nuclear disposal. I see what you are saying about how it is a tiny cost over that huge 30000 year period. Taking that period as given, do you agree that the years where the plant is operational are the most risky?
If the output of waste from a nuclear reactor is still that 'hot', they're doing it wrong. That waste then needs reprocessed for draining more energy out of it, furthering the transmutation to good 'ol lead. It'd be akin to burning gasoline with a 100% conversion output of CO. Guess what: that's incomplete combustion and you just lost a lot of energy. But that's what these reactors do all the time.
If you can't get lead out of it, at least get something that only has a half-life of a few billion years. Then its about as dangerous as lead.
