Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Nuclear industry too big to fail? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Much as I loathe George Monbiot, in this article he does actually talk sense.
    This is also an interesting counter to the objections to nuclear waste.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CurlyBen)
    Are you being intentionally thick? Nuclear costs can be predicted in the same manner as the costs for any other generation type - arguably more accurately than many newer forms, as we've got significant data to rely on, rather than a few years operating wind turbines. If you're talking about clean up costs after an accident, think about the number of nuclear plants in the world and the number of accidents and you should realise that the cost per plant is negligible -
    I very much doubt it will be negligible. And what of nuclear waste management.


    (Original post by CurlyBen)
    that's why they can get insurance.
    Can they?


    (Original post by CurlyBen)
    With regards to Fukushima, do you really think the clean up costs will be a particularly significant proportion of the clean up costs of the earthquake and tsunami?
    If Merrill Lynch are to be believed then yes it will.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    As you can see in Japan, it is too big, and can fail.

    Supplying 50odd % of Japans energy needs, people now do NOT want nuclear plants in Japan, Same in the USA 3 mile island incident (no nuclear plants have been built in the US since)... I think Russia has the same problems due to Chernobyl (though it is now in Ukraine).

    I don't think countries will adopt nuclear tech anymore, i think as soon as Fusion power is economical, it will be fully adopted.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by n00)
    I very much doubt it will be negligible.
    There's well over 400 nuclear plants and more than 60 in construction (source). A billion dollar clean up cost would equate to a little under two million dollars per plant - given how rare an accident is, I'd say that was a pretty negligible cost.

    And what of nuclear waste management.
    What of it? In terms of cost that's already factored in.

    Can they?
    You're not going to find it on GoCompare.com, but in the US at least (I'm not quite sure how it works in the UK) each nuclear licence holder is required to have $375 million insurance cover, and then there's a fund paid for by the industry which pays anything above that £375m up to $12.6bn, at which point it gets more complicated. More info.


    If Merrill Lynch are to be believed then yes it will.
    Source?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by @*=-+1!<>6)
    But all the more expensive when it does.



    Yes i did. and it won't be anywhere near as expensive.
    Except that that is nonsense because you dont look at the cost of 1 disaster and compare it, you look at the cost of 1 disaster multiplied by the chance of that disaster happening and then compare that.

    By that measure Nuclear disasters cost almost nothing in comparison to other forms of power because they are so insanely unlikely.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by @*=-+1!<>6)
    Thanks to a government bailout. Hence the thread title.
    Don't be so smug. Nowhere in your opening gambit did you even talk about a Government bailout, so don't try and pass off that this was your point. You were simply talking about the commercial viability of the technology.

    The Japanese Government nationalising TEPCO serves the purpose of enabling it to continue generating electricity for the government while backing its liabilities to allow it to finish the job at Fukushima.

    At the end of the day, any company struck by a massive natural disaster on this scale is going to end up in financial difficulties. This issue isn't unique to Nuclear Power.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mad Vlad)
    Don't be so smug. Nowhere in your opening gambit did you even talk about a Government bailout, so don't try and pass off that this was your point. You were simply talking about the commercial viability of the technology.

    The Japanese Government nationalising TEPCO serves the purpose of enabling it to continue generating electricity for the government while backing its liabilities to allow it to finish the job at Fukushima.

    At the end of the day, any company struck by a massive natural disaster on this scale is going to end up in financial difficulties. This issue isn't unique to Nuclear Power.
    I wasn't being smug . I did mention it in my opening gambit and why else would I be comparing it to the banks I thought it was obvious.

    The scale is unique to nuclear though.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CurlyBen)
    There's well over 400 nuclear plants and more than 60 in construction (source). A billion dollar clean up cost would equate to a little under two million dollars per plant - given how rare an accident is, I'd say that was a pretty negligible cost.
    But it's not going to be a 1 billion dollar clean up cost. three mile island was a 1 billion dollar clean up and that was in 1979. There's also going to be huge amount on compensation.

    (Original post by CurlyBen)
    You're not going to find it on GoCompare.com, but in the US at least (I'm not quite sure how it works in the UK) each nuclear licence holder is required to have $375 million insurance cover, and then there's a fund paid for by the industry which pays anything above that £375m up to $12.6bn, at which point it gets more complicated. More info.
    The cost of Fukushima could easily exceed that.

    (Original post by CurlyBen)
    Source?
    Previous page
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by @*=-+1!<>6)
    How can it we don't know the full costs.
    You are powerfully dumb.

    You think companies like EDF build plants without projecting how much they will cost and generate to a fairly strong degree of accuracy?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by crazycake93)
    As you can see in Japan, it is too big, and can fail.

    Supplying 50odd % of Japans energy needs, people now do NOT want nuclear plants in Japan, Same in the USA 3 mile island incident (no nuclear plants have been built in the US since)... I think Russia has the same problems due to Chernobyl (though it is now in Ukraine).

    I don't think countries will adopt nuclear tech anymore, i think as soon as Fusion power is economical, it will be fully adopted.
    Also massive LOL at the guy saying "abandon Fission, switch to Fusion" - a) it doesn't work and b) if we abandon Fission the expertise at constructing these plants will be lost, expertise needed for widescale production of "fission plants" if such a thing ever becomes possible (no safe bet)
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HistoryRepeating)
    You are powerfully dumb.

    You think companies like EDF build plants without projecting how much they will cost and generate to a fairly strong degree of accuracy?
    No I think the likes of EDF build plants with the expectation of the government footing some of the bill. Being condescending and making derogatory comments doesn't really help your argument, just makes you look a bit of a prick.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by @*=-+1!<>6)
    No I think the likes of EDF build plants with the expectation of the government footing some of the bill. Being condescending and making derogatory comments doesn't really help your argument, just makes you look a bit of a prick.
    Well you are wrong, the government isn't footing any of the bill.

    All the construction contracts and financing arrangements for the first 3 plants are 90% in place already - the government has no involvement beyond planning / environmental and nuclear-specific permits.

    EDF is also required to set up a fund, which is re-assessed regularly, in which they have to put funds sufficient to deal with full site decommissioning/cleanup.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HistoryRepeating)
    Well you are wrong, the government isn't footing any of the bill.

    All the construction contracts and financing arrangements for the first 3 plants are 90% in place already - the government has no involvement beyond planning / environmental and nuclear-specific permits.

    EDF is also required to set up a fund, which is re-assessed regularly, in which they have to put funds sufficient to deal with full site decommissioning/cleanup.
    As long as nothing goes drastically wrong and not convinced they will be covering the cost of waste management for its lifetime.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by @*=-+1!<>6)
    As long as nothing goes drastically wrong and not convinced they will be covering the cost of waste management for its lifetime.
    I'm sure EDF, the government etc are deeply concerned that you are not convinced.

    Modern reactors are designed so that its basically impossible for anything to go drastically wrong. By contrast, the chances of a significant incident at a gas power plant are vastly higher (but still unimaginably small in the UK).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'm a big fan of nuclear energy. It's a clean, efficient and finite resource and form of energy. Despite what people say it's also safe. The reactors destroyed in Japan were old fashioned 1960s designed, none of the modern ones with the latest technologies were remotely effected. This can't make the goverment go back on nuclear energy.

    It is the way forward because coal and oil are not environmentally friendly and are running out whilst technology is not advanced enough for renewable energy resources to be truly effective yet. The only reservation I would have is that uranium is to run out in, is it 300 years time or so?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HistoryRepeating)
    Also massive LOL at the guy saying "abandon Fission, switch to Fusion" - a) it doesn't work and b) if we abandon Fission the expertise at constructing these plants will be lost, expertise needed for widescale production of "fission plants" if such a thing ever becomes possible (no safe bet)
    Were 40 years away from Fusion technology in consumer form. I don't know any country in the developed world that it builing more Nuclear plants.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by crazycake93)
    Were 40 years away from Fusion technology in consumer form. I don't know any country in the developed world that it builing more Nuclear plants.
    HAHAHAHA

    We haven't even made Fusion work on a microscopic scale yet, let alone proven it can work scaled up in any way. We have been "40 years away from Fusion" since the early 1950s.

    The UK alone has 8 new nuclear plants in planning for the next decade, some of which (Hinkley Point C for example) are already enterring the construction phase.

    There are something like 300 plants in construction or planning around the world.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HistoryRepeating)
    Well you are wrong, the government isn't footing any of the bill.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...y-bill-nuclear
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    I know the discussion has evolved into something else and it's far too late to try and enter, but what the hell...
    saying the nuclear system is flawed because fukushima suffered earthquake damage is like saying that the financial system is flawed because barclay's got hit by a meteorite: rubbish.

    The french have made something called a 'fast breeder reactor'. I don't pretend to understand how it works, but apparently it means that a dose of uranium that would last a few years in a conventional reactor could last for several centuries. Something to do with recycling the fuel.

    Yes, nuclear is a stepping stone, but it's better to have a stepping stone that DOESN'T release carbon than to keep plowing through coal reserves until renewables become ecologically and logistically viable (which they are most certainly not). Nuclear reactors could keep the country running for many hundreds of years yet, and without them, the only alternative is to produce more coal-fire stations to supply the burgeoning power requirements. That is clearly not acceptable, at least if you believe in global waming.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hungryaardvark)
    I know the discussion has evolved into something else and it's far too late to try and enter, but what the hell...
    saying the nuclear system is flawed because fukushima suffered earthquake damage is like saying that the financial system is flawed because barclay's got hit by a meteorite: rubbish.

    If barclays decided to place > $130 billion in the asteroid belt and then had it wiped out by a meteorite, maybe.
    Fukushima was avoidable.
    The financial system is flawed as it relies on government insurance, just like nuclear.


    (Original post by hungryaardvark)
    until renewables become ecologically and logistically viable (which they are most certainly not).
    Nuclear is most certainly not either.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.